Historical Precedence for Ordination Practices

I'm not sure about the quarterly renewal, but he did insist upon a probationary period.

— W.Y. Fullerton, CH Spurgeon: A Biography (London: Williams. and Norgate, 1920).

[ November 23, 2005, 11:09 AM: Message edited by: rsr ]

 

(In my opinion) Your logic is correct. Further additions such as "ordination councils with guests from sister churches" are bells and whistles. As such, they are optional, nice but optional. I view Brother Spurgeon's case as an exception. And considering the issues in his day, his position is understandable. Like they say, hard cases make for bad law.

 

I am answering this via PM. With Brother Dallas' permission, I'll later post my reply here.

 

Pardon me for a moment while I put on my rabbinical kipka (aka yarmulke). Ahh, Rabbi Robertsson reporting for duty.
Nu, if your church supports this endeavor as you say, I would ask for an actual vote authorizing your actions. If it is appropriate I would carefully craft the language of the motion so as to explicitly keep the church financially off the hook. That should put paid to any carping about unauthorized ministry. Years ago, I came up with this little catch phrase:

That anything may not be all that smart or all that scriptural. But, it can be done. God in His wisdom allows churches to do stupid things without outside interference.

If the vote does not satisfy the brethren, then I'd say they were trying to set themselves up as a local presbytery. That is proper for the Presbyterians/Reformed and Evangelical Christian-Baptists, but not us'ns.

As to Acts 13:2, I would add verses 1, 3, and 4 to the mix for the full story. Verses 1 and 2a say Paul (then Saul) and Barnabas were just going about the ministries to which God had called them. They were just kinda moving along like contented saints.
Then the comma and verse 2b occurs. Yes, I dare say it was a direct command of the Holy Spirit. The "Separate me..." looks to me as being in the Imperative mood. But the church (and I am one of those Northern 'local church' only Baptists) did have a part of the sending. I hold the they of verse three is the whole church not just the leadership of verse 1. Which is in line with what Brother Weeks said to us preacher boys years ago:

Then in verse 4, the Holy Spirit is back in the foreground.

Note, as they ministered to the Lord,
and fasted,

The Holy Spirit spoke:
Separate me Barnabas and Saul

to what?
for the work whereunto I have called them.

It seems to me there are several things under consideration here that not only point toward the intentions of the 'preacher' but likewise the position of the body being spoken to.

These things are unrelated to Spurgeon. I do not say them to project upon your imagination a perfect obedience on my part; at the same time, what body of believers collectively hears the Spirit by not ministering first to the Lord?

The question boils down to that which would naturally bring landmarkers out against it...where does the authority lie, in the body (I think so); but where does the authority lie? First it is in Christ, and except ye abide in me...ye can do nothing.

So I am being perceived as rending that authority from the body;

Still has the undershepherd no commission? John 21.

Or is it only the body that may make such claim?

Just more thoughts.</font>[/QUOTE]

 

If I am reading the situation correctly, there is no "usurpation" involved here. The matter seems to have been handled just a tad more informally than the brethren with whom Brother Dallas and his church fellowship feel comfortable. That is why I suggested in my last post a properly worded motion is made to the membership for a formal vote of authorization.

 

From the looks of it, you've taken the proper steps. Just be willing to accept a no vote at the business meeting and discontinue the broadcast.

If you've laid the proper ground work, I don't see a no vote occuring. From what I understand, folks in Arkansas will tell you in a New York minute if they disagree with you in this kind of situation.

 

Ergo sum, I assume your folks are allowing you a modicum of pastoral discretion and initiative. They are content because they know you are going to formally bring the matter before the church at the earliest opportunity.