I was ordained as a reverend (or was it my doctorate?) at the weenie roast two years ago, and have the scrap of paper torn out of a spiral ring note pad on which my ordination decread by Oakspear to PROVE it!
Hey, it is worth as much as wierwille`s was.... AND I didn`t have to pay for mine :)
I was first 'ordained' by the "Word of Christ in Action church" of fayetteville Arkansas; back in 1 June 1981. I did it via the US postal service, as we truly needed someone who would perform weddings for some beleivers in our area. As it turned out, the Limb Coordinator (Steve Strezpec) could have performed weddings as needed, but he did not want to. He just would 'counsel' each couple until they finally gave up. He threw a majoy fit when he first learned that I had gotten the ordination and was doing weddings for beleivers in our branch. He claimed that I was born of a different 'spiritual father'.
I performed weddings in Connecticut, and in Virginia.
Then I got ordained again with ULC, 12 Nov 1991. While we lived local to the ULC international HQ in Modesto California. I dod not know they were on the WWW. As I had dealt with Bishop Hensley in person.
I then continued to perform weddings in California, more in Connecticut and in Washington.
I still carry both ordinations in my Bible.
I also went through a course taught by LCM entitled: "How to perform a wedding". I still have a copy on VHS.
(originally from Oakspear)The "ordination" doesn't confer any degree of spirituality on the person, just legality.
I suppose this is also true for those who graduate from Divinity Schools also. However, I believe it is correct to refer to those as Rev. so and so. Maybe this is just a social custom, but I thought it was a correct and proper title.
However, I believe it is correct to refer to those as Rev. so and so. Maybe this is just a social custom, but I thought it was a correct and proper title.
Correct according to what standard or standards? Tradition? Culture? Scripture?
Goey I do understand what you mean and where you're coming from.
Suppose I refered to the person who my denomination put in charge of my particular church within their jurisdiction as "Pastor", that makes a difference, doesn't it? or does it?
The idea of just confering a title of "Reverand" upon somebody with no demonstrated skills as such bothers me too.
Here are some of my thoughts with an article from the New Bible Dictionary below.
So much of so called ordination is nothing more than the promulgation of religious hierarchy. We all should have figured out by now that for the church of God hierarchy is not biblical. We are a body and members in particular with Christ as the head. Another thing, I don't see religious ritual pertaining to this in the bible. This includes Acts 13:1-3. It seems the teachers and prophets prayed, layed hands on Paul and Barnabas and then sent them out. Any words that they spoke were for exhortation and comfort and, I am quite certain, were not to glorify either Paul nor the people doing the laying on of hands, but to glorify the Lord Jesus. If so called ordination is so important for the body of Christ, you would have to document this for every minister in the New Testament. To the people steeped in religious hierarchy that might benefit from this as a way of keeping control on the religious masses I say, regarding such a biblical endeavor, "Good Luck".
Psalms 111:9
9 He sent redemption unto his people: he hath commanded his covenant for ever: holy and reverend is his name.
KJV
The above is the only usage of the word reverend in the entire bible. Furthermore, it is a reference to God and not a believer. TWI claims that the bible is their only rule of faith and practice, yet they use unbiblical terminology for their leadership. Why should we allow them to elevate a few at the expense of others? Are not we all ministers of the gospel and ambassadors for Christ? Instead TWI and other unbiblical groups want to elevate their leadership above the common believer and in so doing bring idolatry to the church of God. The only Lord we have is the Lord Jesus Christ.
I think we are much to soft on arrogant religious leaders that want to lord over and bully God's people for their own financial gain and religious esteem. If we followed Jesus' example we would not put up with religious tyranny. Jesus called these religious leaders, among other things, whited sepulchers and hypocrites. Perhaps we should follow his example.
With regard to ordination, this word biblically simply means to appoint. Please read the below from the New Bible Dictionary.
From the New Bible Dictionary, Second Edition, revised 1982
Ordination
Considering the role played by the ministry throughout the history of the church, references to ordination are surprisingly few in the NT. Indeed, the word ‘ordination’ does not occur, and the verb ‘to ordain’ in the technical sense does not occur either. A number of verbs are translated ‘ordain’ in AV, but these all have meanings like ‘appoint’. For example, cheirotoneo is used of the institution of elders in certain Galations churches (Acts 14:23), but before we think of this as denoting ‘ordination’ in our sense of the term we must note its use in passages such as 2 Corinthians 8:19 where it refers to the brother who was ‘appointed by the churches to travel with us...’
The twelve were chosen by Christ to be very near to himself and to be sent forth to minister (Mark 3:14). But there is no word of any ceremony of ordination. Mark says that Jesus ‘made (poieo) twelve, and Luke that he ‘chose’ (eklego) them (Mark 3:14; Luke 6:13). This was a very solemn occasion (Luke tells us that Jesus prayed all night before making his selection). But there is no ‘ordination’ mentioned. John speaks of the risen Lord as breathing on the ten, saying, ‘Receive the Holy Spirit’ (John 20:22); but it is difficult to see an ordination in this. It is probably significant that when Matthias was known he was simply ‘enrolled’ or’numbered’ with the others (Acts 1:26). Similarly, prophets and others are called directly by God, though some at least are said to be ‘for the work of ministry’ (Ephesians 4:12; the word ‘ministry’ here is, of course, used of service in a wide sense).
Luke tells us of the appointment of the Seven (Acts 6), and this is often understood as the institution of the diaconate. This may indeed be the case, but it is far from certain. Some think that the presbyterate is meant, and others deny that there is ordination to any ecclesiastical office. They think that Luke is describing nothing more than a temporary measure to meet a difficult situation. If the traditional view is accepted, then the essential thing about ordination is the laying on of hands with prayer. But in view of the uncertainties, and the wide use in antiquity of the laying on of hands, it is not possible to build much on this passage. Nor are we any better off when we read of elders as being appointed in the Galatian churches (Acts 14:23), for, while we may be tolerably sure that they were ordained in some way, nothing at all is told us of how this was done or what was expected of it.
Our most important information comes from the Pastoral Epistles. Paul counsels Timothy, ‘Do not neglect the gift you have, which was given you by prophetic utterance when the council of elders laid their hands upon you’ (1 Timothy 4:14). This passage yields us three items of information about Timothy’s ordination. First, it meant the giving to him of a charisma, the spiritual *gift needed for the work of ministering. Secondly, this came to him ‘by (dia) prophecy’. Thirdly, it came with (meta) the laying on of hands by the elders. The essential thing about ordination is the divine gift. Nothing can compensate for this lack. But there is also an outward act, the laying on of hands. It is possible that Paul refers to the same rite when he speaks of his own laying on of hands on Timothy (2 Tim. 1:6), though it should not be in mind, perhaps something more akin to Anglican confirmation than to ordination. We might be able to make a better judgement if we knew when this took place, whether at the beginning of Paul’s association with Timothy, or not long before the writing of the letter. If with most commentators we take this to refer to ordination, the meaning will be that Paul joined with the elders in the *laying on of hands, which in any case would be antecedently likely. It is probable that we have another reference to the same ordination in the words about ‘the prophetic utterances which pointed to you’ (1 Timothy 1:18).
Ordination is always a solemn affair, and it may be that the words, ‘Do not be hasty in the laying on of hands’ (1 Timothy 5:22) emphasizes this. But in view of the context it is perhaps more likely that they refer to the reception of penitents back into fellowship.
All this makes for a somewhat meagre harvest, which is all the more disappointing , since the Pastorals show us how important the *ministry was, especially the offices of presbyter and deacon. Titus, for example, is bidden ‘appoint (kathistemi) elders in every town’ (Titus 1:5), and much attention is paid to the qualifications for ministers. It is possible to suggest that the Christians took over the ordination of elders from the similar Jewish institution, but this does not get us far. All that we can say for certain, is that the important thing for ministering is the divine gift, and that the essential rite in the earliest time appears to have been that of the laying on of hands with prayer. (*Spiritual Gifts.)
The author of the article that Goey posted is not saying that someone cannot be referred to as a pastor, or a minister, he is not denying difference in function. He is questioning the use of these functions as titles of respect or differentiation. You can say (according to the article) Frank is the pastor of the church, but not refer to Frank as Pastor Frank, or Reverend Frank.
I get it Oakspear; I was a victim of tunnel vision.
Before twi, however, I was into church, and I just accepted the fact that once graduated from whichever seminary, the title of "Rev" was automatically bestowed regardless of the person's spiritual abilities.
Some of the seminaries listed their graduation ceremonies as "Graduation and Ordination", in fact.
Well, it's official! You may now refer to me as Rev. Belle. :)
HOWEVER, I do prefer just "Belle" in keeping with the traditions I grew up around. Our pastor was called Dr. Lloyd growing up but that's because he actually earned his doctorate. The pastor after him was called Mr. Smith because he didn't. He wasn't "Reverend" Smith, just Mr. Smith and "Mike" to the adults. Kinda like my great uncle is Jack or Mr. Jones, pastor of the local church....
I just want to know if I can park in the clergy parking spot at the hospital now. :ph34r:
Your request for ordination has been processed, and you are now an ordained minister of the Universal Life Church in Modesto, California! ... Ordination is for life, without price, and without question of your specific beliefs. You do NOT need to pay any tithe, donation, or offering of any kind, now or in the future.
As a minister, you are authorized by the church to perform the rites and ceremonies of the church (except circumcision), including weddings, funerals, baptisms and blessings, subject to the laws of your country,
state, or locality. Prior to conducting any civil ceremony (such as marriages), you should know and comply with the laws pertaining to your area of jurisdiction.
You are entitled to all privileges and courtesies normally offered to members of the clergy.
Your commitment is to always do the right thing. It is your responsibility to peacefully and sincerely determine the right course of action, and to avoid infringing on the rights of others. You alone are responsible for your actions as a minister.
Thank you for the links to the excellent articles. It's a fantastic ideal.
But it's interesting to consider that Paul was a former Pharisee (Philip.4). According to some traditions (i.e., Papias), "John" was a former high priest. James even appears to have held an esteemed position in Jerusalem relating to the temple, and perhaps even prior to involvement with the Christian movement (cf. Josephus). It appears not uncommon that those who held positions of authority in the Jewish religion came to occupy similar positions within the Christian movement.
In fact, some Christian places of worship still called themselves "synagogues" well into the 3rd century; a study of how the Dead Sea Scroll sect and other movements of Judaism organized themselves might be especially enlightening on this topic.
The complaint was even leveled by one 2nd century Christian writer (Tertullian) against those occupying positions of authority in a rival church who also happened to occupy secular positions of authority in town government (among other secular jobs). Perhaps Tertullian expected to be supported by his church (lol).
No sirreee, he was onto bigger things -there would be no "tent-making" for that writer!
In any event, it appears to me at the moment that those who were gifted or adept at "leadership" positions prior to becoming Christians - in many cases transferred their talents and experiences with them into Christian offices, for better and for worst.
Of course, not everyone considered as having an "office" in the body of Christ had secular credentials.
Pliny the Younger, in writing of the Christians in Pontus, had interrogated "two slave-women whom they [other Christians] called "Ministers" (or "deaconesses" according to one translation). This was circ. 110 A.D.
I tend to think ecclesiastical structure developing within the early churches as having been necessitated as a survival mechanism; Christianity needed to unify/ concentrate all its resources in order to compete in that volatile environment of other religions, and against even other Christian rivals. The more successful Christian groups were those which became extremely well-organized; they had to be; and unfortunately, where desperate times call for desperate measures, establishing strong representative "heads" of authority were required in order to orchestrate and steer the different members of the Church toward common goals. In other words, even it meant doing as the Romans did.
It's quite possible that Christianity would not have survived any other way outside of the ecclesiastical structure that developed within it.
I've even had difficulty in imagining Christianity surviving the many centuries in a far more gentler, perhaps purer ideal. But perhaps now it can.
Am I understanding you correctly? You sought and received a mail order ordination (no disresepect intended) while in TWI because you thought that there was no TWI leadership nearby to perform weddings, later finding out that someone was available, just unwilling?
For some reason I thought that you were ordained in a regular church before getting involved in TWI
It's quite possible that Christianity would not have survived any other way outside of the ecclesiastical structure that developed within it.
I've even had difficulty in imagining Christianity surviving the many centuries in a far more gentler, perhaps purer ideal. But perhaps now it can.
Danny if you are refering to an authoritarian clerg=ruled church and eventually clergy ruled nations, I am not so sure.
But, since the church pretty much abandoned the purer more ideal ecclesiastical plan that I see in the NT writings, we will never know what could or would have emerged. But I suspect it would have been a much purer and more ideal church than what we have seen over the last 1900 years.
Am I understanding you correctly? You sought and received a mail order ordination (no disresepect intended) while in TWI because you thought that there was no TWI leadership nearby to perform weddings, later finding out that someone was available, just unwilling?
For some reason I thought that you were ordained in a regular church before getting involved in TWI
I dont ordinarily publish that I got my ordination through mail-order. Though I did, as you saw.
I normally tell people that I got my ordination from the 'Word of Christ in Action church', I dont normally explain that my interaction with that church was via the mail.
It seemed to be a huge need in the ministry, within the branch where I was (Connecticut 1978). And a focus of so much was how the Ministry was largely a ministry of laity. We did not 'need' to attend seminary, to be able to study the Word and minister to people,
And actually, at my next following duty-station, we were again in a fellowship that was 'far' away from any Way Corp. When I finally did meet the Limb Coordinator (The Lallys) we were called the 'outer-regions Twig'. And I am sure that even after coordinating a Twig there a couple years, The Lallys would have never recognized me had we passed on the street. While in Virginia, there was need within our Twig and on my submarine, a few times for weddings to be done. It seemed a natural extension. Being active in The Word, nobody in the Navy would ever question where the preacher got his credentials. It was not un-common that young sailors find a bride and want to get married. As the Protestant Lay-Leader On-board, I did serve in place of a Chaplain. So I led Protestant Worship services, and celebrated weddings, etc.
We led various Twigs in different places, I was the "Country Coordinator-for Americans living in Scotland" 1987-1990. What a goofy title. It was not until 1991, that we finally got to a place where the Limb Coordinator was someone who actually acted like he wanted to even know who his twig Coordinators were. It was in that time frame 1991-1993, that I did some more weddings for folks in my Twig, and the Limb Coordinator there in Connecticut gave me a copy of LCM's "How to perform a wedding" VHS. George and Wilson Whitehead were great people, just wonderful. It was their replacements that flew into a rage when they heard that I had done yet another wedding, and "threw me out".
My next two subs I continued doing the Protestant Worship Services and weddings for the crewmen, and we were in twigs in Charlestown and later Washington.
Oakspear - I hope that I did not burst your bubble.
Oakspear - I hope that I did not burst your bubble.
Yes, you did. I will now have to tear down the "Galen" shrine that I maintain in my garage. :wub:
Naw, actually I just misunderstood your background.
I've got no problem with "mail-order" or "internet" ordinations, as long as the holder does not misrepresent himself. To some folks, having a representative of this or that denomination perform a ceremony is very important. To others, it's not as important as the committment to each other, and they just want to observe the legalities.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
12
10
4
5
Popular Days
Oct 25
19
Oct 24
10
Nov 1
9
Oct 26
7
Top Posters In This Topic
Goey 12 posts
oldiesman 10 posts
ex10 4 posts
Oakspear 5 posts
Popular Days
Oct 25 2005
19 posts
Oct 24 2005
10 posts
Nov 1 2005
9 posts
Oct 26 2005
7 posts
rascal
I was ordained as a reverend (or was it my doctorate?) at the weenie roast two years ago, and have the scrap of paper torn out of a spiral ring note pad on which my ordination decread by Oakspear to PROVE it!
Hey, it is worth as much as wierwille`s was.... AND I didn`t have to pay for mine :)
Edited by rascalLink to comment
Share on other sites
Goey
So what is your honorific title? Doctor Rascal or Reverend Rascal?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Galen
I was first 'ordained' by the "Word of Christ in Action church" of fayetteville Arkansas; back in 1 June 1981. I did it via the US postal service, as we truly needed someone who would perform weddings for some beleivers in our area. As it turned out, the Limb Coordinator (Steve Strezpec) could have performed weddings as needed, but he did not want to. He just would 'counsel' each couple until they finally gave up. He threw a majoy fit when he first learned that I had gotten the ordination and was doing weddings for beleivers in our branch. He claimed that I was born of a different 'spiritual father'.
I performed weddings in Connecticut, and in Virginia.
Then I got ordained again with ULC, 12 Nov 1991. While we lived local to the ULC international HQ in Modesto California. I dod not know they were on the WWW. As I had dealt with Bishop Hensley in person.
I then continued to perform weddings in California, more in Connecticut and in Washington.
I still carry both ordinations in my Bible.
I also went through a course taught by LCM entitled: "How to perform a wedding". I still have a copy on VHS.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
krys
(originally from Oakspear)The "ordination" doesn't confer any degree of spirituality on the person, just legality.
I suppose this is also true for those who graduate from Divinity Schools also. However, I believe it is correct to refer to those as Rev. so and so. Maybe this is just a social custom, but I thought it was a correct and proper title.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jbarrax
Hmmm. Based on what I'm hearing in the news, the Roman Catholics prefer simply moving pedophiles to another parish where they can start over.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Goey
Correct according to what standard or standards? Tradition? Culture? Scripture?
Below is an article to consider:
Church Leaders & The Use of Honorific Titles
Edited by GoeyLink to comment
Share on other sites
krys
Goey I do understand what you mean and where you're coming from.
Suppose I refered to the person who my denomination put in charge of my particular church within their jurisdiction as "Pastor", that makes a difference, doesn't it? or does it?
The idea of just confering a title of "Reverand" upon somebody with no demonstrated skills as such bothers me too.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mark Sanguinetti
Rejoice:
Here are some of my thoughts with an article from the New Bible Dictionary below.
So much of so called ordination is nothing more than the promulgation of religious hierarchy. We all should have figured out by now that for the church of God hierarchy is not biblical. We are a body and members in particular with Christ as the head. Another thing, I don't see religious ritual pertaining to this in the bible. This includes Acts 13:1-3. It seems the teachers and prophets prayed, layed hands on Paul and Barnabas and then sent them out. Any words that they spoke were for exhortation and comfort and, I am quite certain, were not to glorify either Paul nor the people doing the laying on of hands, but to glorify the Lord Jesus. If so called ordination is so important for the body of Christ, you would have to document this for every minister in the New Testament. To the people steeped in religious hierarchy that might benefit from this as a way of keeping control on the religious masses I say, regarding such a biblical endeavor, "Good Luck".
Psalms 111:9
9 He sent redemption unto his people: he hath commanded his covenant for ever: holy and reverend is his name.
KJV
The above is the only usage of the word reverend in the entire bible. Furthermore, it is a reference to God and not a believer. TWI claims that the bible is their only rule of faith and practice, yet they use unbiblical terminology for their leadership. Why should we allow them to elevate a few at the expense of others? Are not we all ministers of the gospel and ambassadors for Christ? Instead TWI and other unbiblical groups want to elevate their leadership above the common believer and in so doing bring idolatry to the church of God. The only Lord we have is the Lord Jesus Christ.
I think we are much to soft on arrogant religious leaders that want to lord over and bully God's people for their own financial gain and religious esteem. If we followed Jesus' example we would not put up with religious tyranny. Jesus called these religious leaders, among other things, whited sepulchers and hypocrites. Perhaps we should follow his example.
With regard to ordination, this word biblically simply means to appoint. Please read the below from the New Bible Dictionary.
From the New Bible Dictionary, Second Edition, revised 1982
Ordination
Considering the role played by the ministry throughout the history of the church, references to ordination are surprisingly few in the NT. Indeed, the word ‘ordination’ does not occur, and the verb ‘to ordain’ in the technical sense does not occur either. A number of verbs are translated ‘ordain’ in AV, but these all have meanings like ‘appoint’. For example, cheirotoneo is used of the institution of elders in certain Galations churches (Acts 14:23), but before we think of this as denoting ‘ordination’ in our sense of the term we must note its use in passages such as 2 Corinthians 8:19 where it refers to the brother who was ‘appointed by the churches to travel with us...’
The twelve were chosen by Christ to be very near to himself and to be sent forth to minister (Mark 3:14). But there is no word of any ceremony of ordination. Mark says that Jesus ‘made (poieo) twelve, and Luke that he ‘chose’ (eklego) them (Mark 3:14; Luke 6:13). This was a very solemn occasion (Luke tells us that Jesus prayed all night before making his selection). But there is no ‘ordination’ mentioned. John speaks of the risen Lord as breathing on the ten, saying, ‘Receive the Holy Spirit’ (John 20:22); but it is difficult to see an ordination in this. It is probably significant that when Matthias was known he was simply ‘enrolled’ or’numbered’ with the others (Acts 1:26). Similarly, prophets and others are called directly by God, though some at least are said to be ‘for the work of ministry’ (Ephesians 4:12; the word ‘ministry’ here is, of course, used of service in a wide sense).
Luke tells us of the appointment of the Seven (Acts 6), and this is often understood as the institution of the diaconate. This may indeed be the case, but it is far from certain. Some think that the presbyterate is meant, and others deny that there is ordination to any ecclesiastical office. They think that Luke is describing nothing more than a temporary measure to meet a difficult situation. If the traditional view is accepted, then the essential thing about ordination is the laying on of hands with prayer. But in view of the uncertainties, and the wide use in antiquity of the laying on of hands, it is not possible to build much on this passage. Nor are we any better off when we read of elders as being appointed in the Galatian churches (Acts 14:23), for, while we may be tolerably sure that they were ordained in some way, nothing at all is told us of how this was done or what was expected of it.
Our most important information comes from the Pastoral Epistles. Paul counsels Timothy, ‘Do not neglect the gift you have, which was given you by prophetic utterance when the council of elders laid their hands upon you’ (1 Timothy 4:14). This passage yields us three items of information about Timothy’s ordination. First, it meant the giving to him of a charisma, the spiritual *gift needed for the work of ministering. Secondly, this came to him ‘by (dia) prophecy’. Thirdly, it came with (meta) the laying on of hands by the elders. The essential thing about ordination is the divine gift. Nothing can compensate for this lack. But there is also an outward act, the laying on of hands. It is possible that Paul refers to the same rite when he speaks of his own laying on of hands on Timothy (2 Tim. 1:6), though it should not be in mind, perhaps something more akin to Anglican confirmation than to ordination. We might be able to make a better judgement if we knew when this took place, whether at the beginning of Paul’s association with Timothy, or not long before the writing of the letter. If with most commentators we take this to refer to ordination, the meaning will be that Paul joined with the elders in the *laying on of hands, which in any case would be antecedently likely. It is probable that we have another reference to the same ordination in the words about ‘the prophetic utterances which pointed to you’ (1 Timothy 1:18).
Ordination is always a solemn affair, and it may be that the words, ‘Do not be hasty in the laying on of hands’ (1 Timothy 5:22) emphasizes this. But in view of the context it is perhaps more likely that they refer to the reception of penitents back into fellowship.
All this makes for a somewhat meagre harvest, which is all the more disappointing , since the Pastorals show us how important the *ministry was, especially the offices of presbyter and deacon. Titus, for example, is bidden ‘appoint (kathistemi) elders in every town’ (Titus 1:5), and much attention is paid to the qualifications for ministers. It is possible to suggest that the Christians took over the ordination of elders from the similar Jewish institution, but this does not get us far. All that we can say for certain, is that the important thing for ministering is the divine gift, and that the essential rite in the earliest time appears to have been that of the laying on of hands with prayer. (*Spiritual Gifts.)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
The author of the article that Goey posted is not saying that someone cannot be referred to as a pastor, or a minister, he is not denying difference in function. He is questioning the use of these functions as titles of respect or differentiation. You can say (according to the article) Frank is the pastor of the church, but not refer to Frank as Pastor Frank, or Reverend Frank.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
krys
I get it Oakspear; I was a victim of tunnel vision.
Before twi, however, I was into church, and I just accepted the fact that once graduated from whichever seminary, the title of "Rev" was automatically bestowed regardless of the person's spiritual abilities.
Some of the seminaries listed their graduation ceremonies as "Graduation and Ordination", in fact.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Belle
Well, it's official! You may now refer to me as Rev. Belle. :)
HOWEVER, I do prefer just "Belle" in keeping with the traditions I grew up around. Our pastor was called Dr. Lloyd growing up but that's because he actually earned his doctorate. The pastor after him was called Mr. Smith because he didn't. He wasn't "Reverend" Smith, just Mr. Smith and "Mike" to the adults. Kinda like my great uncle is Jack or Mr. Jones, pastor of the local church....
I just want to know if I can park in the clergy parking spot at the hospital now. :ph34r:
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
Welcome to the fold, Belle.
"we are one"
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhiteDove
I am registered with the State of Kansas you can call me Rev. WhiteDove, but I will answer to hey bird or most anything else.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
"Reverand Ham" has joined the discussion.
Please, don't stand.. I'd feel sick..
Darn. Can't have everything I guess..
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheInvisibleDan
Goey,
Thank you for the links to the excellent articles. It's a fantastic ideal.
But it's interesting to consider that Paul was a former Pharisee (Philip.4). According to some traditions (i.e., Papias), "John" was a former high priest. James even appears to have held an esteemed position in Jerusalem relating to the temple, and perhaps even prior to involvement with the Christian movement (cf. Josephus). It appears not uncommon that those who held positions of authority in the Jewish religion came to occupy similar positions within the Christian movement.
In fact, some Christian places of worship still called themselves "synagogues" well into the 3rd century; a study of how the Dead Sea Scroll sect and other movements of Judaism organized themselves might be especially enlightening on this topic.
The complaint was even leveled by one 2nd century Christian writer (Tertullian) against those occupying positions of authority in a rival church who also happened to occupy secular positions of authority in town government (among other secular jobs). Perhaps Tertullian expected to be supported by his church (lol).
No sirreee, he was onto bigger things -there would be no "tent-making" for that writer!
In any event, it appears to me at the moment that those who were gifted or adept at "leadership" positions prior to becoming Christians - in many cases transferred their talents and experiences with them into Christian offices, for better and for worst.
Of course, not everyone considered as having an "office" in the body of Christ had secular credentials.
Pliny the Younger, in writing of the Christians in Pontus, had interrogated "two slave-women whom they [other Christians] called "Ministers" (or "deaconesses" according to one translation). This was circ. 110 A.D.
I tend to think ecclesiastical structure developing within the early churches as having been necessitated as a survival mechanism; Christianity needed to unify/ concentrate all its resources in order to compete in that volatile environment of other religions, and against even other Christian rivals. The more successful Christian groups were those which became extremely well-organized; they had to be; and unfortunately, where desperate times call for desperate measures, establishing strong representative "heads" of authority were required in order to orchestrate and steer the different members of the Church toward common goals. In other words, even it meant doing as the Romans did.
It's quite possible that Christianity would not have survived any other way outside of the ecclesiastical structure that developed within it.
I've even had difficulty in imagining Christianity surviving the many centuries in a far more gentler, perhaps purer ideal. But perhaps now it can.
Danny
Edited by TheInvisibleDanLink to comment
Share on other sites
Galen
Bless you my brothers and sisters;
With so many fellow clergy, I am caused to wonder:
Who here was ordained first?
And Who here has performed the most weddings?
Funerals?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
I don't know Galen.. but at last, I can look any vey clergy in the eye and say:
"I am not inferior to you" :D
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
Galen:
Am I understanding you correctly? You sought and received a mail order ordination (no disresepect intended) while in TWI because you thought that there was no TWI leadership nearby to perform weddings, later finding out that someone was available, just unwilling?
For some reason I thought that you were ordained in a regular church before getting involved in TWI
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Goey
Danny if you are refering to an authoritarian clerg=ruled church and eventually clergy ruled nations, I am not so sure.
But, since the church pretty much abandoned the purer more ideal ecclesiastical plan that I see in the NT writings, we will never know what could or would have emerged. But I suspect it would have been a much purer and more ideal church than what we have seen over the last 1900 years.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Galen
I dont ordinarily publish that I got my ordination through mail-order. Though I did, as you saw.
I normally tell people that I got my ordination from the 'Word of Christ in Action church', I dont normally explain that my interaction with that church was via the mail.
It seemed to be a huge need in the ministry, within the branch where I was (Connecticut 1978). And a focus of so much was how the Ministry was largely a ministry of laity. We did not 'need' to attend seminary, to be able to study the Word and minister to people,
And actually, at my next following duty-station, we were again in a fellowship that was 'far' away from any Way Corp. When I finally did meet the Limb Coordinator (The Lallys) we were called the 'outer-regions Twig'. And I am sure that even after coordinating a Twig there a couple years, The Lallys would have never recognized me had we passed on the street. While in Virginia, there was need within our Twig and on my submarine, a few times for weddings to be done. It seemed a natural extension. Being active in The Word, nobody in the Navy would ever question where the preacher got his credentials. It was not un-common that young sailors find a bride and want to get married. As the Protestant Lay-Leader On-board, I did serve in place of a Chaplain. So I led Protestant Worship services, and celebrated weddings, etc.
We led various Twigs in different places, I was the "Country Coordinator-for Americans living in Scotland" 1987-1990. What a goofy title. It was not until 1991, that we finally got to a place where the Limb Coordinator was someone who actually acted like he wanted to even know who his twig Coordinators were. It was in that time frame 1991-1993, that I did some more weddings for folks in my Twig, and the Limb Coordinator there in Connecticut gave me a copy of LCM's "How to perform a wedding" VHS. George and Wilson Whitehead were great people, just wonderful. It was their replacements that flew into a rage when they heard that I had done yet another wedding, and "threw me out".
My next two subs I continued doing the Protestant Worship Services and weddings for the crewmen, and we were in twigs in Charlestown and later Washington.
Oakspear - I hope that I did not burst your bubble.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
Naw, actually I just misunderstood your background.
I've got no problem with "mail-order" or "internet" ordinations, as long as the holder does not misrepresent himself. To some folks, having a representative of this or that denomination perform a ceremony is very important. To others, it's not as important as the committment to each other, and they just want to observe the legalities.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GrouchoMarxJr
Did I ever tell you guys that I was ordained by "The First Church Of The Last Chance"...
...It's quite a story...handling of snakes, spoon bending, drinking oxygenated water...Come hither my brethren.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Edi
I'm also ordained in the Univeral Church. I wonder how many others went there. Too funny - not in a bad way (just to clarify that!!).
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
Maybe we could schedule an official unofficial Greasespot "clergy meeting".
There's always the next weenie roast.. hmmm.
I will warn my "brethren"- do NOT drink more than one glass of the Elderberry wine..
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.