I am an ordained minister. I was formally ordained in 2001 at Stonebriar Community Church under the guidance and leadership of Chuck Swindoll. Formally, I cannot trace my ministerial lineage back any further. I don’t know who ordained Chuck. Maybe it was Dwight Pentecost? If it was, that is as far back as I can go. It is not too impressive to some, I know, but I believe that my ordination is legitimate nonetheless. I will return to this in just a moment. . . .

I am a committed Evangelical. Even with the talk of its demise (which always seems premature and overstated), I believe that Evangelicalism continues to maintain the fullest and purest expression of the Gospel. Having said this, Evangelicalism is certainly not without its problems. We have difficulty defining ourselves and we have difficulty regulating from within. Both of these problems are interrelated.

Being an Evangelical is supposed to carry with it an internal assumption that the Gospel is being proclaimed in a way that is true to the Scriptures. However, we have a problem regulating what “being true to the Scriptures” actually means. Where do we go to make sure that we are being true to the Scriptures? Billy Graham? Jonathan Edwards? John Wesley? John Calvin? Martin Luther? St. Augustine? St. Irenaeus? While these leaders may provide a regulatory force in some sense, there is no pressure—real pressure—for Evangelicals to look toward anyone for their regulation. In fact, many Evangelicals are completely ignorant of any lineage whatsoever. Therefore, Evangelicalism turns upon the attendance of the name bearer and this name bearer can have absolutely no connection to the historic Christian faith. Yet, at the same time, this person can proclaim himself to be a member in good standing in the Evangelical community.

I have commented before on the need for the Evangelical church to have a higher degree of accountability. This accountability cannot be anything with an institutional formality as there will never be a formal structure to a trans-traditional entity such as Evangelicalism (nor should there be). Yet accountability does not need formality to be functional, it can be assumed.

Some would look at my ordination into ministry as an exercise in futility. Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, and Anglicans would all reject my claim to ministerial status. These all have a ministerial ordination structure that relies on what is called “Apostolic Succession.” You cannot be a minister without it. In the sense that these traditions define apostolic succession, I, indeed, am not qualified to be a minister. I don’t have their type of apostolic succession.

Basic Origins of Apostolic Succession

The idea of apostolic succession first came to prominence in the history of the church as a functional way of combating heresy. Irenaeus was among the first to refer to apostolic succession as he battled the Gnostics of his day. In contention for the truth of Christianity, both Irenaeus and his opponents were referring to the Scriptures to justify their claims to truth. But Irenaeus referred to more than just the Scripture to make his stand; he referenced his lineage of faith. In essence, he argued that his view of Christ was true because he could trace his beliefs back to the Apostles’ teaching. He did not simply use the Scriptures, but he also referred to those who have gone before him and traced their teaching back to the Apostles. His opponents, on the other hand, could not boast of such a lineage. They devised doctrine of their own imagination, disregarding the fact that their beliefs were never held by any before them. If it is new, according to Irenaeus, then it is, by virtue of its novelty, not admissible as a viable option for belief. The Holy Spirit works in and with the church and the church is made up of those living (ecclesia militans) and dead (ecclesia triumphans). Therefore, those who have gone before us create an accountability structure and we cannot separate ourselves from their testimony, even if we believe the Bible is on our side. In other words, the Holy Spirit is not going to teach something essentially different to the present church than he did to those who have gone before us—no matter how special you think you are.

Thus Irenaeus birthed what is now known as apostolic succession. We have the true Christian faith because we can trace it back to the Apostles. Our faith is dependant upon our lineage.

I agree with this concept very much. I believe in apostolic succession. I don’t think we emphasize this concept enough (if at all) in Evangelicalism. In fact, I agree with Orthodox theologian Bradley Nassif who says that the biggest problem he sees in Evangelicalism is that we have “historic amnesia.” However, I don’t agree that the accountability principle that Irenaeus fought for is necessarily found in or exclusive to Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, or Anglicans. Each of these traditions place heavy and necessary emphasis on a definition of apostolic succession which necessitates a minister be able to trace his lineage, person by person, in unbroken succession back to the Apostles. Indeed, impressively, each of these traditions can do this. But it does not guarantee anything. This becomes obvious as each one of the traditions can trace their lineage back, yet they all differ substantially on many very important issues.

However, this does not mean that apostolic succession is not needed in a very real sense. I believe that Evangelicals should be able to trace their lineage back to the Apostles. I am not saying that we should be able to do this by carrying around our ministerial genealogy in our back pocket, but we do need to be able to trace our faith, teaching, and doctrine back to the Apostles, finding harmony with those who have gone before us. I believe this is an avocation of apostolic succession in its truest form. It recognizes a succession of teaching, not simply a succession of person and creates an accountability structure that cannot be ignored.

When we ordain ministers, we are not simply advocating their kindness, usefulness, and general likability. Neither are we ordaining them because they are good preachers, counselors, or encouragers. We are first ordaining them because they are representatives of the historic Christian faith. They are successors to the Apostles in that their beliefs and teachings find historical continuity and biblical integrity—the two of which should not be separated.

If we had this type of assumed accountability, to be Evangelical would mean something again. As well, a whole lot of self-proclaimed Evangelicals would fall off the roster due to disqualification. They can then call themselves whatever they please, but “Evangelical” would be taken. This is why I call myself a “Historic Evangelical“. No, I can’t trace my lineage from person to person in unbroken succession back to the Apostles, but I can trace my faith through those who have gone before me. It is to them, through the power of the Spirit, that I am still held accountable. I am in line with the historic Christian faith on all issues that have defined Christianity everywhere, always, by all (ubique, semper, omnibus).

Evangelicals: we need to rethink apostolic succession.

With this now comes a much more serious ordination process within Evangelicalism. But that is the subject of another blog.

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!