Ordination

[Hans Deventer]

The discussion on Tom Noble and the GS position made me wonder. Where exactly is the difference between someone who is ordained, teaches theology at a Nazarene Uni and holds a Phd, and one who does exactly the same, has the same education but is not ordained? And let's for the sake of the argument presume that the ordained elder never pastored but was ordained as educator.

Is one doing it just like any job, just to make money, in other words, (s)he could also have been a carpenter or a clerk, while the other has a calling to educate?

I'm not trying to talk anyone down or whatever, this is really a question to understand the difference. And it is also somewhat related to my own situation, hence the interest.

[Michael Flowers]

The discussion on Tom Noble and the GS position made me wonder. Where exactly is the difference between someone who is ordained, teaches theology at a Nazarene Uni and holds a Phd, and one who does exactly the same, has the same education but is not ordained? And let's for the sake of the argument presume that the ordained elder never pastored but was ordained as educator.

Is one doing it just like any job, just to make money, in other words, (s)he could also have been a carpenter or a clerk, while the other has a calling to educate?

I'm not trying to talk anyone down or whatever, this is really a question to understand the difference. And it is also somewhat related to my own situation, hence the interest.

This is difficult to address because in my experience the theology professors had all pastored for at least five years and some were doing so even while teaching (case in point, Dr. Carl Leth the Dean of the School of Theology and Christian Ministry at ON and the Pastor at Kankakee Wildwood Church of the Nazarene). However, I think there is a distinction in the calling aspect. Someone like Dr. Noble has likely felt that their call is to teach, not necessarily lead. A pastor (using this term for an ordained individual) who also teaches at a university is going to have a slightly different calling. As a pastor ordained in the Church they have accepted a level of leadership in that church. A General Superintendent must be called to lead. They must be called to pastor the entire denomination.

Now, I don't know Dr. Noble personally but I am sure that he has very clear reasons why he has never been ordained and likely wouldn't really like to be a GS (really, who would want that job outside of being called). A professor who was ordained without actual pastoral experience should, in my humble opinion, be ordained as a Deacon simply because their primary calling is to education and not to the preaching of God's word and leadership in the congregation. The only difference really would be that the one decided to push the ordination issue in relation to their service and one did not (Dr. Noble being the latter).

It's definitely a good question to think about and I will continue to process this. I might change my answer down the road as a result.

[John Reilly]

Ordination requires practical experience (3 years min) as a Pastor practicing the daily functions of Prophet, Priest, Servant and King. These roles can be presented, discussed, debated in a classroom but the actual daily function of Pastor requires the practical application of skills in the actual setting of Pastoral ministry where the parameters are often unpredictable and surprising.

[Eric Frey]

Ordination requires practical experience (3 years min) as a Pastor practicing the daily functions of Prophet, Priest, Servant and King. These roles can be presented, discussed, debated in a classroom but the actual daily function of Pastor requires the practical application of skills in the actual setting of Pastoral ministry where the parameters are often unpredictable and surprising.

I agree 100% with this, but in our polity the offices of servant, prophet, priest, king, don't quite work that way. The way it stands now in the CotN, the deacon fulfills the servant office and the elder fulfills the three-fold office of prophet, priest and king. Because we view these orders as either/or one cannot be both servant and prophet/priest/king. One chooses whether to be elder or deacon. An elder is usually never a deacon. And an elder who was first ordained a deacon must surrender that credential and cease being a deacon in order to become and elder. This is a huge problem in our polity. Contrast it with the traditional/catholic view of orders in which some of the baptized are ordained as deacons and some of the deacons are ordained elders and some of the elders are ordained bishops. Every deacon is also a Christian. Every elder is also a Christian and a deacon. Every bishop is a Christian, a deacon, and an elder. We really need to do some had work to recover a functioning diaconate, and to get the orders in straight, so that an elder can truly practice "the daily functions of prophet, priest, servant, and king."

Sorry for this brief tangent. But on the topic, I don't really have anything to add to Michael's comment above.

[Dennis M. Scott]

Good question. The history of our practice would be perhaps enlightening, but I don't know it, exactly. On more than one occasion, we have had missionaries teaching and preparing ministers for ordination, when the request has come from headquarters to have those missionaries ordained because it seemed intuitive that they should be, or that it would be at least beneficial. I remember one case where the person had been teaching theology for 30 years, but had never pastored. I suspect that the same kind of logic prevailed regarding ordaining stateside religion department personnel. I don't think it's especially biblical, but seems to be scant biblical material on the subject of ordination in general.

[Hans Deventer]

Ordination requires practical experience (3 years min) as a Pastor practicing the daily functions of Prophet, Priest, Servant and King. These roles can be presented, discussed, debated in a classroom but the actual daily function of Pastor requires the practical application of skills in the actual setting of Pastoral ministry where the parameters are often unpredictable and surprising.

431.3. One who is called of God to this ministry who currently
holds a district license, and who has at one time held
a license for not less than three consecutive years and recommended
for renewal of district license by the church
board of the local church in which he or she holds membership
or by the District Advisory Board. Further the candidate
has fulfilled all the requirements of the church for the
same, has successfully completed a validated course of study
prescribed for licensed ministers and candidates for ordination
as elder, and has been carefully considered and favorably
reported by the Ministerial Credentials Board of the
district assembly. The candidate may be elected to the order
of elder by two-thirds vote of the district assembly. To be eligible
for election, the candidate must have been an assigned
minister for not less than three consecutive years, and the
candidate must currently be serving in an assigned ministry.
In the case of part-time assignment, it should be understood
that there should be an extension of the consecutive
years of in-service time, depending on their level of
involvement in local church ministry, and that their testimo-
ny and service demonstrate that their call to ministry is primary
to all other pursuits. Further, any disqualification that
may have been imposed by a district assembly must be removed
in writing by the district superintendent and the District
Advisory Board of the district where the disqualification
was imposed before the minister is eligible for election
to elder’s orders. In addition, the candidate’s marriage relationship
must be such as not to render him or her ineligible
for ordination. (35.1-5.3, 203.6, 320, 426)(Manual 2009-2013)

John, I don't read about a requirement to have practical experience as a pastor. The previous Manual (2005-2009) said explicitly in 429.3 that one of the requirements for ordination were fulfilled if one had "served four years as an assigned teacher in the religion department of one of our Nazarene institutions of higher education". I don't get the impression that the new wording cancels this option.

[Shea Zellweger]

Ordination requires practical experience (3 years min) as a Pastor practicing the daily functions of Prophet, Priest, Servant and King. These roles can be presented, discussed, debated in a classroom but the actual daily function of Pastor requires the practical application of skills in the actual setting of Pastoral ministry where the parameters are often unpredictable and surprising.

This is commonly stated, but not actually supported by the Manual. One is not required to be a pastor in order to be ordained. One is only required to be in an assigned ministry role:

431.3
To be eligible for election, the candidate must have been an assigned
minister for not less than three consecutive years, and the
candidate must currently be serving in an assigned ministry

One such role is Educator

F. The Educator
407. The elder, deacon, or licensed minister is one who is
an educator employed to serve on the administrative staff or
faculty of one of the educational institutions of the Church
of the Nazarene. The district shall designate such a person
as an educator for their ministry assignment

[John Reilly]

Well, I stand corrected. I guess my personal prejudices and concepts over wrote the manual. Let me be clear, I personally feel that the Office of Ordained Elder (Pastor) be reserved for the practice of Prophet, Priest, Servant, King in the local church.

[Dennis M. Scott]

I remember one case where the person had been teaching theology for 30 years, but had never pastored.

Just a few minutes ago, I ran into the now retired missionary I referenced. He reminded me that it wasn't because he was teaching ministerial students that he needed to be ordained, but that he was also serving as district superintendent.

So the question now is, "Should we ordain a district superintendent who has not pastored for three years?"

I guess I hadn't considered that.

[David Troxler]

Ordination requires practical experience (3 years min) as a Pastor practicing the daily functions of Prophet, Priest, Servant and King. These roles can be presented, discussed, debated in a classroom but the actual daily function of Pastor requires the practical application of skills in the actual setting of Pastoral ministry where the parameters are often unpredictable and surprising.

I've been ordained for over 20 years and I seem to have missed out on this "King" thing.

[Hans Deventer]

I've been ordained for over 20 years and I seem to have missed out on this "King" thing.

You mean, people don't actually address you as "your majesty"? [Ducking and running]

No seriously, and with all respect to John, I find this a bit scary. I don't believe John means anything wrong with it, but I see how it can be abused (and has been abused) so easily. If people want to be king, they may do so if they are willing to follow the King who "did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.” John, if that is what you meant, you have my blessing.

[Eric Frey]

I've been ordained for over 20 years and I seem to have missed out on this "King" thing.

It's easy to miss, but check the Manual. You are require to "rule well"... lol!

[Hal Paul]

This is commonly stated, but not actually supported by the Manual. One is not required to be a pastor in order to be ordained. One is only required to be in an assigned ministry role:

Originally Posted by Manual
431.3
To be eligible for election, the candidate must have been an assigned
minister for not less than three consecutive years, and the
candidate must currently be serving in an assigned ministry
One such role is Educator

Originally Posted by Manual
F. The Educator
407. The elder, deacon, or licensed minister is one who is
an educator employed to serve on the administrative staff or
faculty of one of the educational institutions of the Church
of the Nazarene. The district shall designate such a person
as an educator for their ministry assignment

Hm, so does this mean that I can get a job teaching political science at a Nazarene university, finish my academic requirements for ordination (about 8 courses) and after three or four years be qualified as a candidate for ordination? (Not that I'm thinking about it, and I know there is more involved, but it almost looks like it's technically possible to do so.)

[Bud Pugh]

Hm, so does this mean that I can get a job teaching political science at a Nazarene university, finish my academic requirements for ordination (about 8 courses) and after three or four years be qualified as a candidate for ordination? (Not that I'm thinking about it, and I know there is more involved, but it almost looks like it's technically possible to do so.)

It appears, Hal, that you are technically correct, but I think you would find it a little difficult to get past the district ministerial licensing aspect- at least in the district contexts that I am familiar with.

I'm not sure what to do about it but this sure seems to be a strange setup. Previous Manuals prescribed that one who "served four years as an assigned teacher in the religion department of one of our Nazarene institutions of higher education" could be considered for ordination. It may be that the difficulty getting past the district licensing process, as I suggested above, would be the controlling factor.

[Hal Paul]

It appears, Hal, that you are technically correct, but I think you would find it a little difficult to get past the district ministerial licensing aspect- at least in the district contexts that I am familiar with.

Yes, that's what I was referring to when I said there was more involved.

I'm not sure what to do about it but this sure seems to be a strange setup. Previous Manuals prescribed that one who "served four years as an assigned teacher in the religion department of one of our Nazarene institutions of higher education" could be considered for ordination. It may be that the difficulty getting past the district licensing process, as I suggested above, would be the controlling factor.

Four years in the religion department has been my understanding up until today.

[Ryan Scott]

Usually the "educator" assignment is for those teaching in religion departments.

As for Tom Noble, he's about as pastoral minded as any person I know - part of what makes his theology so wonderful.

I've never had an in depth conversation with him, but I suspect he considers ordination a bit more like John Reilly outlined above. I know he would say one doesn't have to be a pastor to be pastoral.

I do find it a bit funny that on most districts you can't teach in the course of study program without being ordained, but our premier theologian, teaching at the seminary isn't.

[Shea Zellweger]

Hm, so does this mean that I can get a job teaching political science at a Nazarene university, finish my academic requirements for ordination (about 8 courses) and after three or four years be qualified as a candidate for ordination? (Not that I'm thinking about it, and I know there is more involved, but it almost looks like it's technically possible to do so.)

The ordaining/licensing district would have to affirm that you were serving in assigned ministry. I can think of a few non-religion professors for whom this might be possible-- it's been posited that Jan Lanham could be ordained within about 5 minutes if she ever expressed interest--but it would be very rare.

[Hal Paul]

The ordaining/licensing district would have to affirm that you were serving in assigned ministry. I can think of a few non-religion professors for whom this might be possible-- it's been posited that Jan Lanham could be ordained within about 5 minutes if she ever expressed interest--but it would be very rare.

I know, did you miss my post where I acknowledged this?

[Shea Zellweger]

I know, did you miss my post where I acknowledged this?

That post seemed to indicate that you thought being in the religion department was a requirement. My point was that it's not. It's the standard way, but the Manual allows for folks outside the religion departments to be ordained, even if none of them will be. Sorry if I misread the tenor of your post.

[Dave McClung]

The discussion on Tom Noble and the GS position made me wonder. Where exactly is the difference between someone who is ordained, teaches theology at a Nazarene Uni and holds a Phd, and one who does exactly the same, has the same education but is not ordained? And let's for the sake of the argument presume that the ordained elder never pastored but was ordained as educator.

Is one doing it just like any job, just to make money, in other words, (s)he could also have been a carpenter or a clerk, while the other has a calling to educate?

I'm not trying to talk anyone down or whatever, this is really a question to understand the difference. And it is also somewhat related to my own situation, hence the interest.

Hans, It is the same difference as one being "an accountant" or being a "CPA." There are many people who are experts in accounting. They may even teach accounting, but they have never taken the steps to become a CPA. Why they don't take that step is irrelevant. Sometimes, it is because they don't want to have to do the continuing education required of a CPA.

Still, there are certain opportunities that are open only to those who are CPAs. Eventhough the accountant may know just as much, they can't participate because they have not fulfilled the requirements to be certified. In the church there are many people who have the "gifts and graces" to be clergy, but they have not fulfilled the requirements.

When I was serving as president of ENC, more than one person suggested that I should go ahead and seek ordination. I could have easily met all the requirements but one -- I don't profess a life-time call to ministry. Half of our college presidents fall in that same situation.

[Bud Pugh]

That post seemed to indicate that you thought being in the religion department was a requirement. My point was that it's not. It's the standard way, but the Manual allows for folks outside the religion departments to be ordained, even if none of them will be. Sorry if I misread the tenor of your post.

The Manual may "allow" it, Shea, but I doubt that was anyone's intention when the phrase "as an assigned teacher in the religion department" statement was removed.

[Hal Paul]

That post seemed to indicate that you thought being in the religion department was a requirement. My point was that it's not. It's the standard way, but the Manual allows for folks outside the religion departments to be ordained, even if none of them will be. Sorry if I misread the tenor of your post.

I don't understand how you got that from the post you quoted where I began the question "does this mean that I can get a job teaching political science..."

If you are referring to my reply to Bud regarding teaching in the religion department, I was simply affirming my understanding based on previous manuals as Bud described them, the ones I read when I was considering a call to the ministry. Today, is the first I had realized teaching in a religion department is no longer a requirement and it is entirely possible, albeit unlikely that one could be ordained by serving at a Nazarene school outside the religion department.

[Hans Deventer]

I do find it a bit funny that on most districts you can't teach in the course of study program without being ordained, but our premier theologian, teaching at the seminary isn't.

Well, then I have something in common with him: I've taught in the course of study program without being ordained.

[Hans Deventer]

Hans, It is the same difference as one being "an accountant" or being a "CPA." There are many people who are experts in accounting. They may even teach accounting, but they have never taken the steps to become a CPA. Why they don't take that step is irrelevant. Sometimes, it is because they don't want to have to do the continuing education required of a CPA.

Still, there are certain opportunities that are open only to those who are CPAs. Eventhough the accountant may know just as much, they can't participate because they have not fulfilled the requirements to be certified. In the church there are many people who have the "gifts and graces" to be clergy, but they have not fulfilled the requirements.

When I was serving as president of ENC, more than one person suggested that I should go ahead and seek ordination. I could have easily met all the requirements but one -- I don't profess a life-time call to ministry. Half of our college presidents fall in that same situation.

Dave, I'm not sure I follow the accountant or CPA distinction, as both are fully educated, certified and recognized to perform their job in my example. And are doing the same thing.
Your personal story comes closer to the issue, it seems to me: you don't profess a life time call to ministry. Which at the end of the day, is something between God and you.

This thread and your answer have been helpful though, a Min Cred board is not so much to look at exactly what is being done and the difference in that area between ordained and non-ordained people, they are to look at the call.

[Dana Grant]

::::::::::::oking my head in:::::::::::

An accountant is not considered certified until he takes and passes the CPA exam. Maybe fully educated, but not certified. Only a CPA is considered certified (Certified public accountant). Don't know if that helps or not, but I was just reading along here and thought I'd poke in here and say that.

Carry on.......

[Hans Deventer]

::::::::::::oking my head in:::::::::::

An accountant is not considered certified until he takes and passes the CPA exam. Maybe fully educated, but not certified. Only a CPA is considered certified (Certified public accountant). Don't know if that helps or not, but I was just reading along here and thought I'd poke in here and say that.

Carry on.......

Yeah. And my point was that, as in the example of Dr. Noble, he is fully certified, recognized, authorized and whatever to teach at NTS. But he's not ordained. So where's the difference? And that seems to be the call.

[Nate Pruitt]

All I know is that I am looking forward to, Lord willing, being ordained at our District Assembly next summer... I'll let the rest of you worry about nominating me for GS after that.

[Michael Flowers]

Yeah. And my point was that, as in the example of Dr. Noble, he is fully certified, recognized, authorized and whatever to teach at NTS. But he's not ordained. So where's the difference? And that seems to be the call.

Basically the illustration goes that ordination would be the final "certifying" to be done for Dr. Noble if he were to want to go further in the church structure (say to DS or GS). He is certainly trained, recognized and authorized for teaching at NTS but his opportunities for advancement in the denomination beyond "professor" are limited, just as an accountant who is not a CPA is limited to a certain degree by not taking the step to be a CPA.

[Hans Deventer]

Basically the illustration goes that ordination would be the final "certifying" to be done for Dr. Noble if he were to want to go further in the church structure (say to DS or GS). He is certainly trained, recognized and authorized for teaching at NTS but his opportunities for advancement in the denomination beyond "professor" are limited, just as an accountant who is not a CPA is limited to a certain degree by not taking the step to be a CPA.

Well, he can still become a university president and we know of at least one who does not consider election as a GS to be an advancement

But anyway, I wasn't really interested in that direction. To me, it was about the difference between an ordained professor and a non-ordained professor, both fully qualified to teach. That difference appears to be the call only.

[Shea Zellweger]

I don't understand how you got that from the post you quoted where I began the question "does this mean that I can get a job teaching political science..."

If you are referring to my reply to Bud regarding teaching in the religion department.

I am, because that's the one you linked to, which led me to think that the first one was intended as tongue-in-cheek. Again, sorry for misreading you.

The Manual may "allow" it, Shea, but I doubt that was anyone's intention when the phrase "as an assigned teacher in the religion department" statement was removed.

I'm not so sure of that. Having lived on a couple of districts where our educational institutions are located, I've heard about several professors (and one former university president) who teach in areas other than religion, but who are perceived as being involved in ministry in those areas. I've also heard from a handful of current and former DAB members that they would favor ordaining these professors if they expressed feeling of a life long call to ministry and a desire to be ordained. While I imagine it would be a significant exception to Standard Operating Procedure if such an ordination took place, I would not be surprised if the removal of that language had just such a situation in mind.

[Michael Flowers]

Well, he can still become a university president and we know of at least one who does not consider election as a GS to be an advancement

But anyway, I wasn't really interested in that direction. To me, it was about the difference between an ordained professor and a non-ordained professor, both fully qualified to teach. That difference appears to be the call only.

I'm not sure that becoming a University President is much of an advancement either. All that means is that you end up even busier than you were before.

But yes, I think that you are correct in that difference for ordained/non-ordained professors is likely a matter of calling only. Most likely the main difference is that many were ordained prior to being led into teaching at a university, while a few others were not. It would be interesting to find out how many, if any, professors of our institutions have been ordained after taking a teaching assignment (while not pastoring a church at the time).

[Shea Zellweger]

I'm not sure that becoming a University President is much of an advancement either. All that means is that you end up even busier than you were before.

But yes, I think that you are correct in that difference for ordained/non-ordained professors is likely a matter of calling only. Most likely the main difference is that many were ordained prior to being led into teaching at a university, while a few others were not. It would be interesting to find out how many, if any, professors of our institutions have been ordained after taking a teaching assignment (while not pastoring a church at the time).

Well, if it hasn't happened yet, then I'm gunning to be the first

[Michael Flowers]

Well, if it hasn't happened yet, then I'm gunning to be the first

But haven't you pastored before and thus have some pastoral experience?

[Shea Zellweger]

But haven't you pastored before and thus have some pastoral experience?

Yes, but not sufficient for ordination. Unless I gain 3 consecutive years of full time pastoral experience between now and when I get my doctorate, it's likely that my ordination will be based, at least in part, on my teaching experience.

[Michael Flowers]

Yes, but not sufficient for ordination. Unless I gain 3 consecutive years of full time pastoral experience between now and when I get my doctorate, it's likely that my ordination will be based, at least in part, on my teaching experience.

True. My statement earlier though was pertaining to those who have absolutely no pastoral experience and that is why I asked. Personally, I would probably categorize a teaching ministry (if it is solely teaching) to be the ministry of a Deacon in the Church of the Nazarene, but that's just my take on the situation.

[Hans Deventer]

True. My statement earlier though was pertaining to those who have absolutely no pastoral experience and that is why I asked. Personally, I would probably categorize a teaching ministry (if it is solely teaching) to be the ministry of a Deacon in the Church of the Nazarene, but that's just my take on the situation.

I would say that depends on the question if there is a call to preach. If an educator is also a frequent preacher, I'd ordain him/her as an elder. If not, I agree the deacon would be the proper order.

[Michael Flowers]

I would say that depends on the question if there is a call to preach. If an educator is also a frequent preacher, I'd ordain him/her as an elder. If not, I agree the deacon would be the proper order.

Agreed, which is why I added a qualifier about "solely teaching" to my statement. A professor who spends many of Sunday's preaching in a pulpit supply type setting I would recommend toward being an Elder.

[Ryan Scott]

I suppose this does speak to our ordination requirement. I know when the denomination was in search of a new General Secretary many people wondered why that position required ordination - a number of people wanted to ask Dave McClung to do it and get us back on track.

[Mike Schutz]

I am one of those folks whose teaching was outside of the Religion Department and that experience was sufficient for ordination. At the time of my ordination I had taught in the psychology department and served as director of the college's counseling center.

[Hal Paul]

I am, because that's the one you linked to, which led me to think that the first one was intended as tongue-in-cheek. Again, sorry for misreading you.

Thanks, no it wasn't intended as TIC. I honestly have difficulty processing how anyone who serves as a political science prof (I use that because it is where I would most likely wind up), or my dad's eight years as registrar, should ever be considered as qualifying service for ordination based on having worked at a Nazarene institution, they are too much like positions in secular campuses.