By Bill Leonard
The London Confession (1644), a creatively Calvinist Baptist statement of faith, contains this passage on ministerial ordination:
“That also such to whom God hath given gifts, being tried in the Church, may and ought by the appointment of the Congregation to prophesy according to the proportion of faith, and so teach publicly the Word of God, for the edification, exhortation, and comfort of the Church.”
The words, “being tried in the Church,” seem as essential to Baptists’ current understanding of and responsibility for ministerial ordination as they were over four centuries ago. They came to mind recently when I attended an ordination council (and resulting ordination service) at Knollwood Baptist Church in Winston-Salem, N.C.
The process was guided by the church’s “Ordination Policy and Procedure,” an impressive document that illustrates how one congregation organizes ordination to “the Gospel Ministry.”
The introduction links 17th and 21st century Baptists in such statements as: “While we do not believe that ordination confers any special holiness or puts a Christian into a higher category of discipleship, we do believe that ordination is public testimony to the ordinand’s fitness for ministry, and thus that it should be done only after a process of serious consideration.”
The Knollwood process includes three phases:
Phase 1 begins as persons seeking ordination consult with the church’s “clergy team” and request ordination. They must have maintained membership and “meaningful connection” with Knollwood for at least one year.
Next, a “Mentoring Committee” is appointed to certify “pre-requisites” including a formal application and completion of an “undergraduate degree and a graduate theological education from accredited institutions.”
Candidates “seeking exemption” from the educational requirement are “asked to make a case.” The candidate and mentoring committee are then introduced to the congregation.
Phase 2 involves a “Period of Mutual Discernment” for “forming, advising and mentoring,” in which the Mentoring Committee becomes both resource and dialogue partner for exploring candidates’ “calling and gifts.” After a period of 4-6 months, the Mentoring Committee provides congregation and deacons with a summary of the process and a recommendation regarding ordination. Deacons vote on the recommendation and, if it is favorable, the process moves to Phase 3.
Phase 3 leads to an ordination council involving an Examining Committee, formed in consultation with the candidate, involving at least 12 persons, eight of whom are from the congregation.
Candidates provide the committee with documents that include one’s “life story and spiritual journey” and a “credo statement” addressing God’s activity in creation, redemption, Jesus Christ, the work of the Spirit, the church’s ministry, with particular attention to Baptists, “the human condition in theological perspective,” and “the nature of public ministry” — in “15 typed-double spaced pages.”
These essays shape the dialogue between committee and candidate at the ordination examination. The committee then votes on recommending the candidate for ordination.
If it is positive, an ordination service is scheduled. Although there are exceptions, the church’s “clear preference” is that candidates have a pending call to a specific ministry position.
I was privileged to observe the results of this process as a member of the Examining Committee for KBC member and New Testament scholar, Dr. Diane Lipsett. This segment of her theological statement captured my particular attention:
“Baptist churches that are moderate to progressive seem to me to have some distinctive opportunities within the landscape of contemporary Christianity. Such Baptists are well-placed to reflect on fresh ways of understanding and urging conversion or the changed self — seeing conversion as not only a crisis or event but an ongoing process, as not only a shift in interior commitment, but also a movement into new networks of relationship and purpose. Moderate to progressive Baptists also have a distinctive opportunity to refine and articulate their reverence for the Bible, and to offer a 21st century example of people who read, interpret and are compelled by scripture both with an unconstrained conscience and within a community of readers. Baptists also stand with other religious communities today in finding the vital and shifting balance points between care for believers and social action, between strong religious commitment and bold religious tolerance.”
Thus the required essay became a source of instruction for candidate and committee alike. The intentionality of the Knollwood Baptist Church in delineating a clear process for ordination shapes the following observations.
No church without a clear, congregationally approved ordination policy should take responsibility for ordaining any man or woman to the ministry. All ordinands should be fully vetted around issues related to religious experience, calling, biblical/theological interpretation, and insights into Baptist history, polity and identity.
Identity is essential since many Baptist congregations are increasingly uncertain as to who and what Baptists were and are. Perhaps one reason churches are jettisoning the Baptist name is that they and their ministers have lost a sense of heritage, and doubt that such identity is helpful in postmodern society.
Ministers and congregations thus ignore the multiple choices (a very postmodern option) that Baptist history offers them. This loss of identity may ultimately leave them anchorless, without a historic center for understanding the roots of ideas and convictions they did not engender on their own.
Greater intentionally in examining and ordaining those “to whom God hath given gifts” of ministry can help foster that identity. But we’d better hurry.