# Lay ordination in early America, and also re-ordination after taking new churches



## Pergamum (Oct 7, 2010)

I am reading Horton Davies, _The Worship of the American Puritans_. 

He speaks of the 1600’s practice of lay ordination in America and how later the laying on of hands by a presbytery replaced this. 

What do you think of “lay ordination” and who has the power to lay on hands for new ministers if this occurs in a pioneer setting, a new land or an area without large concentrations of older churches? It appears that pastors were selected from within the ranks of a new church and the other members then ordained this pastor from among their midst, whereas in “churched areas” among many denominations, older already ordained men examined and ordained the “ordinant” (the person candidating for ordination).

Davies writes, “As the Seventeenth Century wore on, and British Presbyterians such as Samuel Rutherford and Charles Herle embarrassed the American Puritans by claiming that the New Testament envisioned ordination as an act of presbytery (by fellow ministers), laymen gradually cased to ordain ministers.” (page 261).

Also, in early America, it appeared that every time a minister switches churches, he would often be re-ordained. What do you think of this? Wouldn’t other churches recognize the validity of the last church, and if so, why would a re-ordination be required.

This question is directed especially towards the Baptists. If a pastor switches churches, does he cease to be a pastor or minister while in-between churches (if his status depends on the authority of a local church), and then must he be re-ordained and have hands laid on him anew every time a new pastorate is embarked upon. Or should we view pastors as a separate caste of people, who should be recognized even in-between churches as such and whose ordination should only be a one-time affair?


----------



## Kevin (Oct 7, 2010)

Perg, I think that by "lay ordination" in these historical cases is meant "ordination by lay elders" i.e. non teaching elders.

this is not what is ordinarily meant today by 'lay ordination". Within presbyterianism in the USA there has long existed a tension between those thta advocated for the role of "laymen" (RE's in our terms) in the ordination of ministers.

The pro-laity faction won out in the South, and hence that is our practice in the PCA.


----------



## Willem van Oranje (Oct 7, 2010)

Pergamum,

The circumstances which trigger your questions are based on congregational polity. In historic congregational polity, a minister is ordained by a congregation. (In New England, it became the common practice to hold an "ordination council" first to examine the candidate. However the ordination itself was performed by the congregation.) The congregational understanding of ordination to office is that it is for a specific call. Essentially the call is the office. This means that both viewed as expiring with the dissolution of a particular call. Therefore, accepting a new call would be the equivalent of getting ordained again.


----------



## Pergamum (Oct 7, 2010)

Riley:

Yes, I am congregational in polity, but I am uncomfortable with this view of the call. It appears that a man is called by God and churches recognize this calling, thus a man need not be re-ordained repeatedly. Under this congregational view of the call there can be no such thing as a pastor without a church, or a man being saved through the Scripture and raised up to lead and evangelize others without contact with the already-existent church (a situation that happens sometimes in remote areas where a man reads the Bible or hears the Gospel for himself but is cut off from the established church and so works in isolation for a time).

So, am I inconsistent being a reformed baptist but disagreeing with this repeated need for re-ordination?


Also, do you agree that Paul was already called and a missionary prior to having hands laid on him by the Antioch church? Or do you think this was Paul's "ordination service"?


----------



## Willem van Oranje (Oct 7, 2010)

Pergamum said:


> Riley:
> 
> Yes, I am congregational in polity, but I am uncomfortable with this view of the call. It appears that a man is called by God and churches recognize this calling, thus a man need not be re-ordained repeatedly. Under this congregational view of the call there can be no such thing as a pastor without a church, or a man being saved through the Scripture and raised up to lead and evangelize others without contact with the already-existent church (a situation that happens sometimes in remote areas where a man reads the Bible or hears the Gospel for himself but is cut off from the established church and so works in isolation for a time).
> 
> ...


 
Pergamum,

I'm with you. Despite my current affiliation I am presbyterial. I do not hold to congregational church polity. I believe that ordination should ideally be by a presbytery. Regarding your questions, I think the congregationalists would have said that Paul had a call from God, but that this call needed to be continuously functioning in and recognized by the body in order to be validly recognized as such. However I can't be sure about that. I'm not precisely certain what the congregationalists would say about ordination to the office of _apostle_, which is in many ways different from the continuing office of minister of the word.


----------

