20 Million Ordinations Since 1959

Re: Re: Re: 20 Million Ordinations Since 1959

I think we all agree on honesty, but disagree on how and when it should be enforced by law.

I have to say I'm with Bill and Rich on the technical details of First Amendment interpretation when it comes to the ULC--if we say they can't ordain ministers using a form, we have the government determining what is and is not a real ministerial ordination. That may be fine in the ULC's case, but it would set a dangerous precedent. It's just not worth it. And, more to the point, it's constitutionally impossible.

But I'm with you and Russell on the ethics of the situation. Calling yourself an ordained minister implies a title that has both sectarian and non-sectarian utility; "Rev." will score you brownie points with almost anyone, and if you got your "Rev." by filling out an online form and don't actually function as a religious professional, they're unearned brownie points.


Cheers,

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: 20 Million Ordinations Since 1959

Well said, and a fair compromise!

Ordination is a license. It gives weight in society as you so aptly stated. It is as legal as a driver's license, although you at least have to pass tests for that!

I think the burden will lay on individual churches/temples/synagogs to police their own. Again I was dealing with ethics not governmental intrusion.

Since I fall under that catagory, I was expressing how I would consider it at my church, with respect to others' opinions.


Kevin

 

Good points.

I'd reply that religions, scriptures, gods, saviors and clergymen aren't fungible or interchangable. If you have a barrel full of water, it doesn't really matter very much which particular molecules you get. It's all water. But it does matter which religion you choose or which scriptures you read. It actually matters whether you consult a rabbi, a mullah or a Catholic priest.

People who are drawn to a ULC minister aren't just throwing darts at a list of clergymen, and choosing one at random. People who don't like what the ULC is doing will go elsewhere.

In that sense, the ULC is actually a consumer protection organization. It clearly identifies its clergymen as do-it-yourselfers, as free-lancers, as anything-goezers.

Compare that to all of the weird spurious spinoff churches that affect Anglican titles or claim obscure relationships with Oriental patriarchates. It's hard to know what you are getting with those.

Was it a fiasco?

We can employ the common-sense assumptions that we use in our daily lives and deduce that they died in vain, but employment of those very same assumptions would yield the same result when applied to Christian martyrs. A comet-paradise? Heaven? It all sounds equally bogus to the folks over on alt.atheism.

I agree with that.

If I were seeking authentic instruction in the doctrines and practices of any established faith, I'd definitely seek someone educated in those things.

If I was looking for spiritual guidance of a more fundamental sort, I'd trust my heart, my brains and my gut. None of my most valued religious counselors have ever been clergymen. Certainly I'd never actively seek a ULC minister to perform that function. But I wouldn't have any hesitancy to accept a ULC minister if he or she seemed to merit it.

That's why I drew my distinction between religion and scholarship:

Religion involves our relationship with whatever it is that we consider divine. The relationship has a transcendent term, and objective and pursuasive standards of success or failure would seem to require divine and not human judgement. Our own intuitions of success and failure in this area are among our most personal and subjective feelings.

Scholarship in religion involves the application of accepted scholarly method to a body of data provided by an historical religious tradition or by empirical observation of people's religious behavior. Scholarly standards are public and entirely human in origin, deriving from the integrity both of the historical tradition being studied and of the methods that are being brought to bear upon it.

Educational accreditation doesn't purport to reach beyond the realm of the human or to employ revelations received from God. Accreditation of religious practitioners implies considerably more than that, assuming the atheists aren't right.

My question is whether this is an accreditation that man can give.

 

This is a great question. No, his speech doesn't have to be limited. But his employment should be. When he speaks publicly, he does so as the Secretary of Education. And in that role, it is irresponsible speech.

Would I rather he lie? Of course not. But he should decline to speak publicly about those beliefs because they run counter to his role.

If I went on television and slammed my employer, or spoke about things that were against company policy, I could expect recriminations. Paige did just that. He's just fortunate that his boss agrees with this stuff. But perhaps Mr. Bush's employers (the people) will not agree.

 

I'm sorry you equate someone talking about this subject with interfering with others' rights to practice their beliefs. Of course, when I suggest that others should keep their religious beliefs to themselves, I get slammed by none other than you. So which is it? Talk about it or not? I'm cool with "not," but it's not really fair if some get to make their points while others cannot.

Disagreeing is not the same as intolerance, either. In fact, I do tolerate it. But it seems the reverse isn't true. Can't you tolerate my beliefs?

 

Bias? Not as in "prejudice." I just think it's superstitious jive. But I don't normally point that out because it's just my point of view. But when religion creeps into places where it doesn't belong, I'll speak up.

 

I see the evolution (gasp!), except the last part. I'm having trouble discerning the difference between the monkey and the professor. Perhaps it is because I am too close to the issue?

 

The answer to that question is.... God not men and woman call people to serve. See my response to Tom, I think it fits here. I was talking about honesty, and how I would deal with it in my own church, as a man not as a government entity.

Even though God calls people, They need to be equiped to function well. In the Bible it's full of Scriptures dealing with studying to show yourself approved, and to have leaders in place to teach others. I was pointing out the ethical flaws to using such an ordination improperly. As my teacher used to tell us, " don't become so heavenly minded that you're no earthly good." Religion doesn't call for leaving behind common sense. In the Bible it compares the walk of faith as a race. The runner prepares for the race. So leaders, ordained ministers who don't prepare for their calling will likely cause many problems. God uses common things like school to teach.

It's like the story of the man who in a flood cried out to God to save him. A bit later a raft with some townsfolk came by and yelled for him to jump on and the man replied that he was waiting on God. Later a rescue boat came by and the man refused even as the water was rising to the second story window. Later as the water was up tp the rooftop a emergency chopper come overhead and called down to grab the rope. The man refused this as well. He was waiting on God's deliverance. Well, the man died and as he stood before God he asked Him why he didn't answer his prayers, and God said He tried. He sent the raft, the boat, and the chopper.

Likewise, school is important. I care about people and want to teach properly. This is my personal conviction. I never want to use position irreverently or lightly. That's why I'm training so as to be a good minister. The words a minister speak can have a huge impact on someone's life. It could be the difference between life and death for some. It's that serious.

Take care! It's nice to discuss things with you and the others in this forum.

Kevin

 

I'm not slamming you at all, Rich. You and I are DL associates and shall continue to be. We do seem to hold different positions when it comes to matters of religion. Yes, I am very tolerant of your religious/areligious beliefs. I don't agree with some of them, but you have every right to embrace them.

Yes, lets talk about our religious positions!!! My point in the many past threads is that you have not been hesitant to share your views---even when others were not trying to force their views on you. And so have I.

So, lets talk!

 

At last! We are now getting somewhere!

 

You certainly have a right to your opinion. In reading some of your posts over the years I have sensed an almost phobic reaction (often strong) to religion (specifically Christianity). I do not know what has happened in your past that has wounded you but it is something you need to look at and deal with (not necessarily publicly on degreeinfo).

My opinion is that your writing off religion as bunk and superstitious goes against logic and reason in the case of Christianity. I have long realized that even in the face of logic and reason people will deny the reality of Christianity (I Cor 2:14). My wish and prayer for you is that you will come to know Him who came that you might have the abundant peace filled life.

When you say you do not see any difference between a priest, rabbi or a ULC minister that is like saying you do not see any difference between a UIU, University of Michigan Ph.D. and a Columbia State Ph.D. You may not be able to make the distinction in the case of clerical validity in the same way that some of those in your survey could not with degrees. This fact does not mean the difference is not there, merely that you cannot discern it.

None if this is meant in a negative way. I have respect for you and have sometimes felt bad as on certain topics here and the distance forum you were a lightning rod and received undue flogging. If the RC doctrine of purgatory were true (it is not) you would have been flogged right out of purgatory (ie done your penance especially over MIGS)

North

 

Uh oh.

 

To ensure quality of religious education and meaningful ordination I suggest we put Rich Douglas in charge of determining standards.

Better yet, why don't we put Osama Bin Laden in charge. He's looking for work.

Everyone would soon come to appreciate the separation of church and state.

 

Ordination Mills

As far as minister's needing an accredited ordination or degree from a GAAP bible college, I know a minister at a fairly large "Christian" church in Indiana who learned his preaching skills at local churches and was ordained by another church without ever having gone to any bible college, for that matter he does not have any post-secondary degrees at all. Yet he is quite sucessful and popular in his area. I even had him preach at both my parents funerals ( I myself am an agnostic) and my family and friends thought he did an excellent job. A person can learn the skills for most jobs outside an RA or GAAP school classroom, therefore in my opinion it does not matter where a minister gets ordained, or even if he is "ordained" at all.

 

You can't put in charge of standards. I've already advocated (in this thread) that there be NO standards! (At least, from government.) To ensure religious freedom, which I certainly support, we also have to ensure freedom FROM religion.

 

There's a saying that the last thing a burgular wants to see is the cops!

Some people who don't like religion are that way because they hate morals outside of what they want to classify as morals. I mean, if we're just some great cosmic accident then I can do whatever I want and justify it. Extreem views of this were Hitler and Stalin. They were both athiests. Without morals why not? I mean if it's all about survival of the fittist then I'm gonna do whatever is good for me, the hell with everyone else.
That's why some so vehemently oppose any religion around them.

Other's problems with religion stem from either bad examples, or a sense of feeling let down. Some also can't explain what "God" would allow all the suffering. These are good issues that have answers. There are, of course, other reasons.

Many times it's indoctrination. youngsters go to school and are told, "all your parents tell you is false....but we know the truth." Where is the seperation of church and state there? It seems like the state is a bit too intrusive there. That's why many opt for private schools. Like it or not polls show that the vast majority of Americans believe in God, though the particulars vary. A recent poll in the Plain Dealer shower amazing results here in Ohio. I believe only around 6% of people polled believed in evolution only as the reason for life. The other's are the ones discriminated against. They are the vast majority and they're told they are in essence liars and that their faith is false. It's a double standard. Majority rules, but minority's rights. You can't have it both ways. Don't fool yourself. neo-Darwinism is a belief system. When a evolutionist discipers age of fossils and the form of lifeforms they do so with a particular slant just like a person of faith has their own slant that they see through, and I know that evolutionists have many ghosts in their own closets as well. I see evolutionary theory "evolving" all the time. Out dated text-books tell the story quite well. How about the moths that were pinned to the trees for one example. Also, Most people who are religious do indeed believe in natural selection. Nevertheless, all variations are within already given norms. Even the vaunted "evolving virus" example is bunk. The mutations always occur by loss of information or transfering of already existing information. Nothing "new." Why is it that evolution goes against the second law of thermal dynamics? If given time all thing break down in the universe why is life on earth alone (that we know of), going in the opposite direction. Look at the complexity of the most simple cells. Given time they just happened to fall into place complete with functionality, reproductive abilities and ability to consume nutrients! I'm telling you it takes great faith to be an evolutionist. Yet this religion is touted as truth complete with dogma and then it's called "science." Then it is taught in schools.

Also, I am still trying to get a proper answer of what "primivial ooze" really was. Spontaneous life from inanimate chemicals.....Talk about needing great faith!!! See, you really are religous, Rich!

Takecare! I really am only razzling you in good humor.


Kevin

 

I'm not Rich, but I would class myself as something of a religious agnostic, of an apophatic-mystic sort. At any rate, I'm certainly not a Christian. I'm gonna take this opportunity to return your slam back across the net at you.

I'm a little put off by your attempt to characterize Rich as damaged. One could just as easily suggest the same thing about you.

Why do you say that?

I don't think that anyone denies the reality of Christianity. It's the truth of Christianity's more exotic claims that's problematic.
Christianity's claims to possess unique and exclusive truth are also questionable. The difficulty is most apparent when one is faced with the task of justifying Christianity to an intelligent and sincere skeptic, or to an adherent of a different faith.

I might be wrong about my failure to embrace Christianity, but the responsibility is squarely on those evangelists who fault us for failure to believe, to suck it up intellectually and to engage with us, clearly presenting their "logic and reason" in such a way that it will be convincing to a reasonably thoughtful and open-minded non-Christian.

It isn't our responsibility to believe in one particular religion out of many unless we can prove it false. It's your reponsibility to get off your big fat lazy butts and practice some decent apologetics.

There's lots of difference between priests, rabbis and ULC ministers. Nobody denies that. The question is whether there is any difference in the eyes of the law. (Not really.) And whether there is any difference in terms of their relationship to the divine. (That's for you to demonstrate.)

I think that your analogy between ULC ministers and Columbia State Ph.D.s is weak.

Ph.D.s treat subjects that are not school specific. Physics is physics, whether one studies it at MIT or Columbia State. The subject of physics has its own norms and standards that are entirely human in origin, involve no divine revelations, mystic realizations or holy spirits, and appeal to objective experimental evidence and logical/mathematical analysis. The whole thing is right there in plain sight for everyone to see, critique, tinker with and continually upgrade.

But clergymen are a different animal. Mullahs, ministers, priests, rabbis, bonzes, sadhus and shamans all are coming from different cultural places and they all are reaching towards ostensibly different goals (it's hard to be sure, which is precisely the point). Since they all concern themselves with man's relationship with the transcendent (however that's conceptualized), they all reach outside the normal sphere of human experience. They place the greatest of emphasis on divine revelations, mystic realizations and holy spirits. And most significantly, there seems to be no generally accepted standard for success or failure in these matters.

I have argued that since the relationship with the divine has a transcendent term, and the transcendent exceeds man's understanding by definition, only God can discern whether whatever divine accreditation standards there are have in fact been met. Only God can tell us which religion and which religious practitioners (if any at all) are in fact the real deal.

From the point of view of man, that leaves all religions and religious practitioners on basically the same level. That returns us to Rich's point which I have just defended.

 

Re: Ordination Mills

Connecting these remarks to the context of the "Christian" (ONLY)ordination and function of the pastoral aspirant and to a religious body which both desire to follow the directives and examples of the New Testament (not merely function within what is 'legal' or what 'feels' good) some observations can be made.

Obviously there were no Dallas Seminaries or such in the first century church to prepare one nor were there any well organized ecclesiastical hierarchies to give the approval on one's ordination. But this does not mean that anyone could function as pastor. For the NT has guidelines for ordination pertaining to both knowledge and skills (and there were other requisite areas as well besides just these as personal and familial attributes).

The candidate must be able to teach according to 1 Timothy 3:2 and Titus 1:9. The phrase apt to teach ,[ 'didakticon' found also in 2 Tim 2:24], is qualified by 'dei' which means that skill is a requirement. It is not a mere suggestion! The second reference more qualifies what is included in the ability of being 'apt to teach.' Ethical components are not excluded in the teaching (Titus 2:1,2) , but much of the content obviously is doctrinal given the adjective 'good' (hugiaino) which in 1:9 qualifies the articulated (ie, given the article to indicate a particular body of learning) "The Teaching." Titus 1:9 says the candidate for ordination must be able to use "The Teaching." This would require an understanding of "the teaching." One cannot use that which is not understood! Inclusive in this usage there is the verb 'elecho' (convince) which means according to the best experts in the field of the lexics of Biblical Greek "an educative discipline."(Buschell, 'elegcho', TDNT, 2:474). So obviously, the one wishing to be ordained and also the group wishing to ordain if they intend to follow the NT regs will estimate the candidate's ability to teach. *{{As an aside that body which hands out these ordinations immediately and freely directly and clearly contradicts the NT mandate to NOT to ordain someone with such immediacy [1 Tim 5:22}}.* But this required skill in teaching is teaching *what* exactly? And this is where the real rigor develops!

Please recall that this response only concerns what the New Testament says. Only those applicants and ordination bodies which actually do care about following NT principles will be affected. If such persons and groups wish to say that the only requisite for pastoral work is that one is alive, or has lived, or has red hair, or can do 30 chin ups, or * just merely thinks* he/she should be ordained then fine, that certainly is legal. Such is far afield of my issue here.

But the fact is that the NT has high expectations for the knowledge of those who aspire to pastor! This "The Teaching" [te didaskalia] referenced above is broad and complex!! It is made so today because we are much distanced from the apostolic presence and teaching by our own cultures, preconceptions, and language. The lucid evidence for this is the conflicting opining about doctrine even within even evangelicalism itself! And yes Paul had his Gnostics and hardliner legalists and misusers of glossalalia to contend with, but now we have a pletora of loud and conflicting voices contending easch that they are truth speakers! I think that is why denominations much prefer to ordain only those who attend schools of their own denominations. I can see their point ,even if I have no love for denominationalism. {I am an eclectic in theology within the perimeters of evangelicalism}. It takes time to even learn the particulars of even one system of theology. So these denominations may sort of assume they are right in their preference, but I am not so sure.

This is because "The Teaching" is broad and deep. Again, the Greek experts tell us that the didaskalia means a "systematized body of teaching" (Wuest, Pastorals, 74) or "the sum of the teaching"(Wegenast, TDNT). There is so much to know here! Take a simple quiz: What does "Son of God " mean? Born of God in an never ending process??? Born of Mary virginally??? Messiah??? Like God??? God's equal??? God's representative on earth??? Adopted at baptism??? It is not easy to take a position on the barest of Christian knowledge -[what does Son of God mean??]-and defend that position. So we have creeds to tell us what to believe!!!

And the pastor is not simply there to make all the congreants feel good! I grant there is more to pastoring than teaching and much more than just knowing doctrine. Yet the pastor is expressly given the task of guarding souls from those who distort truth(Acts 20:28-30). There IS a relationship therefore between theology and the spiritual life according to the NT!! The pastor is there to respond when someone says "Jesus is not unique according to the Bible because the Bible says we ALL are God's children!" The pastor is to save himself and his church BY immersing himself in The Teaching (1 Tim 4:18). The purpose of the pastor clearly is said to be to build up his congreants in the knowledge of the Son so that they will not be confused by false teaching. (Ephesians 4:12-14). Again note the correlation of true doctrine to spiritual health in thr NT!!

Again this is "just" what the NT says. It not USA law. I do not suggest everyone must abide by it. It applies only to those who wish to follow the NT in this matter. If someone challeges my lexics or other exegesis of the NT itself , then let's see the argument!

Now if someone has the skill and knowledge to meet such requisites outlined above without accredited or even formal training, then that is fine. But in my opinion those would be rare exceptions. But with the good tools as theological works available and the "natural " gifts or charsismata one one might have, I would not wish to rule that possibility out despite my love for schooling.

Such would be to limit God.

 

Re: Ordination Mills

Ordination is conferred by several entities, e.g., denominations/fellowships, local churches, individual clergy, etc., based on one's particular tradition.

What you describe is a common practice in some faith traditions, e.g., Independent Baptist, Free Will Baptist, etc., in which the local church ordains the ministerial candidate. While an academic degree is not required, the local church places its approval on the ordinant. This means that the local church body is saying one, some or all of the following:

1) Confirmation and evidence of the ordinant's conversion.
2) Evidence of a "call" to Christian ministry.
3) An exemplary lifestyle based on Christian teachings.
4) That the candidate is not a novice, or one without experience.
5) Evidence of the ordinant's understanding of theology/doctrine.

This is quite different than ordination in three minutes via the net.

 

I should have been more clear. I was referring to legal differences, which is where this discussion is centered. Is there a difference between Jerry Falwell and a ULC minister? Sure. One of them is identifiably evil.

As for why I feel the way I do, you are wrong. You should expect to be, given you have no idea why I feel the way I do. It was a guess, and it was a wrong one.