1.) Ordination in heretofore Conservative denominations was always for the purpose of protecting the Church from wolves in sheep’s clothing and from sheep who were not qualified to be shepherds. Clearly, ordination, for several decades has failed in this regard as evidenced by ministers in heretofore denominations which were considered “conservative,” who are now embracing Critical Race Theory, Intersectionality, the myth of white privilege and systemic racism. Minister who have been ordained in previously thought of conservative denominations have been found out to be anti-Christ thus teaching us that Ordination is a joke.
2.) The failure of the Ordination process is are least partially attributable to the fact that the right questions have not been asked of ordinates. For example, the ordinates are not asked if they can provide a working knowledge of Marxism and then why Marxism is not Christian. Ordinates are not asked to explain materialism and whether or not that is consistent with Christianity. Ordinates are not asked to explain the precepts of the ancient heresy of Gnosticism and then to explain where they see Gnosticism in the church in the West today. (The modern Reformed Church is just covered with Gnosticism.) Ordinates should be being grilled on what the Frankfurt school is and then being expected to analyze it from a Biblical perspective. If I had my way, ordinates would be able to articulate the differences between Barthianism and Christianity explaining why Barthianism is not Christianity. In brief, the worldview of candidates should be thoroughly and exhaustively vetted. Candidates for ordination should be asked questions on epistemology, ontology, axiology, and teleology. If they can’t handle these questions and a host of others that could be easily elucidated then they should be turned down until they can answer those questions.
3.) This means asking questions only about a candidates familiarity with the Bible, his knowledge of theology proper, his reciting of Church History, and a few questions on hermeneutics is no longer enough to tell us if a candidate should be piloting a pulpit. We are seeing that a candidate can have a working knowledge of these areas and still be either seriously heterodox or even a heretic. As the ability to connect the dots between these areas mentioned in #3 and the areas mentioned in #2 is shot the ordination process has to expose the inability to connect those dots.
4.) The ordination process should also include some time that asks the candidate to compare and contrast the following schools with Biblical Christianity,
a.) Radical Two Kingdom (R2K) theology
b.) Federal Vision
c.) New Perspective on Paul
d.) Dispensationalism — both historic and progressive
e.) Baptist New Covenant theology
f.) Neo-orthodoxy
5.) Candidates should be queried about their reading habits. How much do they read. What do they read. They should be required to provide a reading list from your last 6 months being told that they should be expected to be asked about the information in those books combined with an analysis of those books from a Christian understanding. I don’t care if they are reading “50 Shades of Grey” as long as they can tell me what is wrong with it.
In all my time of being exposed to ordination processes I’ve never seen one candidate I could have or did vote for. I’ve seen candidates who couldn’t tell me the three great imputations in Scripture. I’ve seen candidates who admitted to me that they didn’t read and didn’t like to read. I’ve seen candidates who couldn’t tell me what original sin was and its effects. I’ve seen several of these same candidates though who sure knew what racism was and how they were committed to fighting racism once they got their Churches.
It is clear something has to change in our ordination process because right now those entering into our pulpits, exceptions notwithstanding, in Reformed churches are pathetic. I suspect that is primarily because our Seminaries have become pathetic but that is for another post.
