Baptist Ordination Practices Examined (III)

For the previous two entries in this series see here and here.

In "THE MEANING OF ORDINATION: A MODEST PROPOSAL" by Stanley K. Fowler* (see here - emphasis mine), we have some important insights on our subject.

(*Stanley K. Fowler serves as Professor of Theology and Academic Dean of Central Baptist Seminary in Gormley, Ontario)

Wrote Fowler (emphasis mine):

"Many Baptists (and others) are taking time in 1992 to remember the work of Charles Haddon Spurgeon, the great Victorian preacher who died exactly 100 years ago. One aspect of his ministry which is unknown to many is the fact that he never received ecclesiastical ordination. I remember that this fact was pointed out to me years ago by one of my pastors, who commented that Spurgeon viewed ordination as the imposition of "empty hands on empty heads." When I later read Spurgeon's sermon on 1 Tim 4: 14, I realized that his rejection of ordination was based on much more than a witty comment containing more truth than we may want to admit. In point of fact, his argument was that New Testament examples of ordination (e.g., the ordination of Timothy) refer to the actual bestowal of spiritual gifts through apostolic hands, which may be acceptable to modem Anglicans and Roman Catholics, but is not the meaning of ordination in the Baptist tradition. For Spurgeon, therefore, the New Testament ritual is not the same thing as the modem Baptist ritual, and thus the former can hardly serve as the basis for the latter."

I totally agree that "the New Testament ritual is not the same thing as the modem Baptist ritual" as it respects many Baptist groups, though thankfully not all. It is certainly true with regard to those called "Primitive Baptists."

Gill and Spurgeon, and the many Baptists who followed them in their views on this subject, were not guilty, however, of not following the NT. They in fact spoke out against the ritual adopted by many Baptists. The "ritual" of "ordination" or "laying on of hands by presbyters" among PBs is not in keeping with Baptist teachings (as we will see) but is based upon a false view of the clergy in relation to laity, an error among Presbyterians, Catholics, and other Protestant groups.

Fowler continued:

"Perhaps, then, it is time to take another look at our practice of ordination, and to ask whether it is Biblical, extra-Biblical, unbiblical, or some combination of the above. (Amen to that! Who is willing to throw off tradition and look at the thing honestly and from the word?) The current practice in my own circles is roughly this: Ordination is a public recognition that a man is gifted and called by God for pastoral ministry. It recognizes, but does not convey, God's gifts of grace which empower for such ministry. It normally occurs after a few years of pastoral service, not at its inception. It is an act of the congregation which the man is serving, but the process includes an ordination council called by the church. This council is composed of pastors and laypersons from other churches within the denomination, who question the candidate on his conversion, call to ministry, and doctrinal convictions. The council recommends (usually) that the church proceed, and the formal ordination occurs in another service, in which there is a ritual laying on of hands by congregational leaders, ordained members of the council, or a combination of the two. How does this correlate with New Testament teaching and examples?

Since when does a local church need an "ordination council" from other churches to "approve" her appointments?

Fowler continued:

"It soon becomes obvious in this survey of usage that there is no technical term for "ordination" in the New Testament. What we have instead are various words denoting appointment or installation. The word has taken on a technical sense for us due to its current usage, but this does not match the New Testament pattern. Therefore, if one is going to argue that our present practice is mandated by Scripture, the argument will have to be based on examples or principles, not on terminology.

Forget the "technical definition" or what it means to be "ordained." How does the bible define being ordained to the pastorate or ministry?

Fowler continued:

"It is also clear that in Biblical terms, "ordination" is meaningless apart from a specific object. In other words, one is ordained to be something, whether an apostle, an elder, or some other kind of servant of God's kingdom. "To be ordained" is an incomplete idea in Biblical terms. This should be kept in mind in the current debate about the role of women in ministry. One ought not ask, "Should women be ordained?" The question is, ordained to what? Furthermore, each of the relevant Biblical texts uses "ordain" to describe the entrance into a particular ministry, not some form of recognition which occurs only after a period of probation. Indeed, each of the Greek words translated "ordain" is very broad in its meaning, but each denotes the introduction into a state of affairs, not a later confirmation of it. In New Testament terms, when a church appoints a man as pastor, that church has "ordained" him to be a pastor."

Finally, if I am right in arguing that what we Baptists call "ordination" is not really what the New Testament means by that term, then we ought to admit that our practice is actually a granting of denominational credentials, which may be justified on pragmatic grounds."

I totally agree with Fowler and his words are a good follow up to what has already been presented on the subject in the preceding posts, and also a good introduction for the remainder of our remarks on this subject. Since when does a church need to obtain "denominational credentials" for her appointed leaders? That is more akin to Episcopalianism and Presbyterianism, or perhaps we should say "Nocolaitanism"?