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?
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?