What is Ordination?

Christian Bland, a pastor in the Presbyterian Church in America, joins us as a new contributor to Reformed Dogmatika. We’re glad to welcome him.

In the last century or two, there has been significant debate and development as to who may be ordained, even in confessionally Reformed and Presbyterian churches. Most denominations in America have opened ordained offices to women.

Currently in the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA), there is debate over the office of Deacon. An overture was sent to the PCA’s 53rd General Assembly, meeting in June of 2026, proposing a change to our Book of Church Order (BCO) that would allow church sessions to choose whether or not to ordain women to the office of Deacon, at their discretion.

Another overture has proposed allowing sessions to decide between ordaining only men, ordaining men and commissioning women, or not ordaining anyone and only commissioning men and women as Deacons.¹ Thus, we not only face the question of who may be ordained as Deacons, but even whether the office of Deacon is an ordained office at all.

Much debate has preceded and will follow these proposals concerning relevant passages of Scripture, like Romans 16:1 or 1 Timothy 3:11. Yet, in the midst of a debate concerning who may be ordained as a Deacon, there has been a surprising lack of discussion concerning what ordination is. These cannot be disconnected.

In fact, I consider our modern confusion concerning the subjects of ordination to be caused, in part, by a lack of understanding of our doctrine of ordination. Therefore, this article will argue that the nature of ordination itself helps to demonstrate who are the proper subjects of ordination by surveying and summarizing the Reformed doctrine of ordination and comparing it to that found in Scripture.

The Reformed Doctrine of Ordination

Throughout church history, there have been different answers to the question, what is ordination? Roman catholicism defines ordination as a Sacrament, performed by the bishop’s laying on of hands and prayer, which imparts priestly authority and the gift of the Holy Spirit.²

This view became necessary in the middle ages to explain how Church officers have the ability to administer the Sacraments.³ This was due to the growing view of the Sacraments, that they grant inward grace automatically through the outward administration.

In the Reformation, however, this view of the Sacraments was rejected and as a result, so was the sacramental view of ordination. Martin Luther argued strongly against the sacramental and priestly view of ordination in 1523.⁴ Yet, as James Bannerman argues, “Luther takes up his position at the opposite extreme,” by treating the Ministry of the Word and Sacraments as an inherent right of all Christians.⁵

Though Luther grants that the Church is right to elect trained men to carry out this Ministry, he still retains the Word and Baptism as a right of all believers. This view seems to have had most impact on the congregationalist or independent view of ordination, in which ordination is often optional, simply validating the congregational election.⁶

The Reformed churches also sought to reform the doctrine of ordination, though arguably in a more moderate way. John Calvin affirmed the right of the congregation to elect ministers, but retained the unique right of existing ministers to ordain those who were elected. The result is that the authority of the Church is not inherent to a believer, as in Luther’s view, but through ordination this authority is invested in a believer.

Only men authorized by the Church may exercise the authority of the Church, namely, authority to govern and exercise discipline (Teaching and Ruling Elders), to preach God’s Word and administer the Sacraments (Teaching Elders), and to collect and distribute Church funds (Deacons). This authorization occurs through ordination, after the congregation’s election.⁷

What then is the rite of ordination, which invests called and elected men with the authority of the Church? Calvin emphasizes the laying on of hands, as a symbolic act of blessing and consecration. Other Reformed theologians have treated the laying on of hands either as optional or as something to be avoided altogether due to its association with Roman superstition or the impartation of the miraculous gifts in the New Testament.⁸

Calvin agrees that it is not commanded as a precept, but when existing pastors lay their hands on a man being ordained, they are following the apostolic pattern: “In this way they consecrated the pastors and teachers, and the deacons.”⁹

The Westminster Divines, in their Form of Presbyterial Church Government, similarly defined ordination as “the solemn setting apart of a person to some public church office,” and further explained that “Every minister of the word is to be ordained by imposition of hands, and prayer, with fasting, by those preaching presbyters to whom it doth belong.”¹⁰ This makes more explicit what Calvin implied, that a prayer for the Lord’s blessing is included in ordination.

Bannerman defines ordination in the same way, and further explains that in ordination, “we have warrant to believe that, in answer to prayer, all the promises connected with the office are fulfilled, and the special blessing or grace suited to the office will be conferred.”¹¹ Thus, as the Reformed doctrine of ordination developed, it became clear that this was not a bare ceremony, but a genuine prayer for the Holy Spirit’s blessing upon a man’s ministry.

A prayer which we may genuinely expect the Lord to grant, when a man is duly called by Christ, elected by the congregation, and ordained by the Elders. As Bannerman concludes, “Ordination is less than a charm, but it is more than a form.”¹²

This is how modern confessionally Presbyterian and Reformed churches still define ordination. As a Teaching Elder in the PCA, I am most familiar with the definition in our BCO: “Ordination is the authoritative admission of one duly called to an office in the Church of God, accompanied with prayer and the laying on of hands, to which it is proper to add the giving of the right hand of fellowship” (17-2). This contains all the elements of the Reformed doctrine of ordination, already discussed.

The Biblical Doctrine of Ordination

Now that we have the Reformed doctrine of ordination before us, we might rightly ask, Does this follow the biblical doctrine of ordination? As is often the case, Scripture does not explicitly define ordination in one place, but we find the definition after a systematic study of relevant passages. This has been missing from our modern debate about who may be ordained, particularly Deacons. The debate has focused on the interpretation of a few verses, rather than systematically considering Scripture’s view of ordination.

The key passage in this systematic study is Numbers 27:15-23.¹³ This is the account of Joshua’s appointment to succeed Moses, that he might lead Israel into the promised land. The Lord told Moses,

Take Joshua the son of Nun, a man in whom is the Spirit, and lay your hand on him. Make him stand before Eleazar the priest and all the congregation, and you shall commission him in their sight. You shall invest him with some of your authority, that all the congregation of the people of Israel may obey. (27:18–20)

The Lord directed Moses how to appoint a man over Israel, and this included the laying on of hands, as a symbolic action of investing him with authority. In this way, Moses would “commission” Joshua in the sight of Israel, a Hebrew word which has significant semantic overlap with our word “ordain.”¹⁴

It was not the laying on of Moses’s hands that imparted the gift of the Holy Spirit to Joshua, since he already had the Holy Spirit (v. 18). Instead, the central aspect of Joshua’s ordination was being invested with authority from Moses (v. 20).

Although prayer is not mentioned in Joshua’s ordination, it is implied by the laying on of Moses’s hands. This ceremony was practiced in various contexts in Scripture, but in general, it was a symbolic action of blessing or consecration.¹⁵ In some cases, like sacrifices, it symbolized the transfer of something, like guilt, from the one laying hands to the one on whom hands were lain.¹⁶

In Num 27, it seems there are multiple things being symbolized by the imposition of hands: Joshua’s consecration as Israel’s leader, a prayer for the Lord’s blessing to be upon Joshua in his new role, and a transfer of authority from Moses to Joshua.

It is no surprise that we see this practice of ordination continued in the NT. Pastors and Elders were ordained following this pattern (1 Tim 4:14; 5:22; 2 Tim 1:4; 4:5), although the imposition of hands was performed by more than one person (cf. Acts 13:1-3).

More importantly to our current context is Acts 6:1-6, which is the first and most clearly recorded ordination in the NT. In response to a complaint regarding the daily distribution of food to those in need, the twelve apostles gathered the church and said,

“It is not right that we should give up preaching the word of God to serve tables. Therefore, brothers, pick out from among you seven men of good repute, full of the Spirit and of wisdom, whom we will appoint to this duty. But we will devote ourselves to prayer and to the ministry of the word.” And what they said pleased the whole gathering, and they chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Spirit, and Philip, and Prochorus, and Nicanor, and Timon, and Parmenas, and Nicolaus, a proselyte of Antioch. These they set before the apostles, and they prayed and laid their hands on them. (Acts 6:2–6)

In order to alleviate themselves from this duty (cf. Acts 4:35), the Apostles appointed seven men to a new ecclesiastical office. This appointment occurred through prayer and the laying on of the Apostles’ hands, like Num 27. The imposition of hands more than likely had the same significance: consecrating these men for the office, imparting the Lord’s blessing, and transferring authority from the Apostles to the new Deacons.

Just like the ordination of Joshua demonstrated to the Israelites his authority and their need to submit to his leadership, so the ordination of the Deacons demonstrated to the Jerusalem Church their authority and the church members’ need to submit to their ministry. Also like Num 27, and unlike some other instances of the imposition of hands (cf. Acts 8:17), the seven chosen men were already full of the Holy Spirit prior to their ordination.

Some theologians in recent years have argued that Acts 6 does not record the ordination of the first Deacons, because some of these seven men go on to preach and baptize (7:1-53; 8:5; 8:38). Yet these extraordinary instances do not change the ordinary nature of the office established in Acts 6. These seven men were appointed to “serve tables” (6:2) or oversee the daily service of food. The word Deacon is just the Greek word for “servant,” so this description in Acts 6 fits well with the office of a servant.¹⁷

Further, it is clear that these seven men were not ordained to be Ministers of the Word, because the Apostles created this office in order to leave themselves free to devote themselves “to prayer and to the ministry of the word” (6:4). The fact that one or two of these men went on to serve as an Evangelist (21:8) does not mean that they were appointed to such office in Acts 6, but that Christ later called them to a new office. Importantly, the majority view of Acts 6 throughout Church history, including in the Reformed tradition, has been to accept it as the account of the ordination of the first Deacons.¹⁸

Finally, Paul makes it clear that only male members of the Church may exercise the authority of the Church: “I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet” (1 Tim 2:12). Some have argued that this is not an ongoing principle and others that it only pertains to preaching. Yet, Paul’s appeal to the ongoing order in creation (1 Tim 2:13) means we should receive this as a perpetual rule.

Further, to disconnect this from Church office in general is untenable, because Paul immediately turns to the offices of Overseer and Deacon in 1 Tim 3. Not only from the apostolic pattern, then, but also from apostolic principle, we see that only men may exercise ecclesiastical authority as Church officers.

Theological and Practical Conclusions

This survey of the biblical and Reformed doctrine of ordination leaves us with one conclusion: in order to open the ordained office of Deacon to women, our doctrine of ordination would need to change first. As it stands, an egalitarian diaconate is inconsistent with our doctrine of ordination. We see this, first, because the Reformed doctrine of ordination closely follows the biblical doctrine.

Namely, ordination is a consecration, blessing, and investing with authority to exercise Church office, symbolized by the laying on of hands. Instead of abandoning or altering it, we should be retrieving our doctrine of ordination from our Reformed forebears, because they faithfully systematized the biblical teaching. Second, the office of Deacon is clearly an ordained office in Scripture. Any proposal to give men or women the title or role of Deacon, without ordaining them, is a departure from apostolic practice.

Third, besides the apostolic pattern, the doctrine of ordination clarifies who may be ordained as a Deacon. The laying on of hands symbolizes the transfer of authority from existing officers to new officers. This means that the office of Deacon carries with it the authority of the Church. Further, because the first Deacons were ordained by Apostles, in order to delegate a task originally carried out by the Apostles, the Deacons did not have a different kind of authority, but the same spiritual authority applied to a different task.

Likewise, the task of caring for the poor today falls on the Elders (BCO 9-2), who ordain Deacons to carry out this service. So, Deacons today have the same type of authority as Elders. Reading this doctrine of ordination alongside 1 Tim 2:12, we can conclude that the ordained and authoritative office of Deacon is reserved for men only (BCO 7-2). The nature of ordination itself, rather than the nature of the offices of Elder or Deacon, makes it clear that only men may enter ordained office in general.

Of course, this must not exclude women from non-ordained service in the Church. Churches have included the service of female members in different ways. Many throughout Church history, including in the Reformed tradition, have supported the existence of the non-ordained role of deaconess, women who care for the sick and poor under the supervision of men ordained as Deacons.¹⁹ Without arguing for or against it, a proposal to that effect would be more consistent with our doctrine and tradition.

But a proposal to ordain women to any office, including Deacon, would crack the foundation of the doctrine of ordination. The nature of ordination determines who may be ordained, since ordination implies ecclesiastical authority. We do not, and should not, have two doctrines of ordination, nor two standards for who may be ordained, one for Elders and another for Deacons.

Finally, proposals to amend our doctrine of ordination should not be entertained, because as we have seen, our doctrine follows that of our Reformed forebears, and more importantly, it follows Scripture. “In accord with Scripture, these offices are open to men only” (BCO 7-2), not only because of the nature of the offices, but because of the nature of ordination itself.

Footnotes