click here to tweet this post
click here to share with your friends
subscribe to this feed
More on Evangelical Apostolic Succession
by C Michael PattonJuly 24th, 2009
16 Comments
Some Q/A about my proposal for an Evangelical Apostolic Succession.
Does this mean that we believe that there are modern day Apostles?
No, this does not in any way say that people are to carry on the “office” of apostle nor its authoritative prophetic accessory. It implies no infallibility on anyone. It is simply a safe guard the way it was in the early church to test if someone was carrying on the true faith.
What about Evangelical doctrines which are novel such as sola Scripture and sola fide?
I would argue that they are not novel at all. I would grant that their articulation was somewhat dormant, but this in no way suggests non-existence. We don’t believe that the Council of Nicea advocated a non-existent doctrine of the Trinity in 325 A.D. It simply was a development of the seeds that were already there.
In other words, my proposal for apostolic succession does not suppose that there cannot be development in doctrine. What we pass on is the DNA of the faith. It can take form as it grows and it can even shape itself in individual cultures. The DNA of our faith is very flexible.
This type of apostolic succession is already an unspoken for many of us (and you). It is simply a matter of getting Evangelicals to become more historical with regard to their faith.
For example, if we were to place more of a priority on this type of apostolic succession novel doctrines such as the health wealth Gospel may arise, but the identity of Evangelicalism would be protected. We would not go through an identity crisis, always groping to find out who we are. Promoters of the Health-Wealth Gospel would simply not be Evangelical (at least in this sense).
I have proposed that we call this “Historic Evangelicalism.” Others have said something very similar. Those who wish to identify could, but this would carry, first and foremost, the identifying with the boundaries or, better, the center that we believe has anchored and focused the church with regard to our beliefs for two-thousand years. We simply cannot be something today that is dichotomous to what the church was then.
Frankly, many of the seeker models would not make the cut.
It would imply much more doctrinal fidelity and historic community than has been the case of the last 200 years of Evangelicalism (since the second great awakening).
Are you saying that Evangelical ministers should be able to trace their lineage person by person back to the Apostles like the Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, and Anglicans?
No. Apostolic Succession does not necessitate a succession in person, just a succession in teaching. I think that this has been the implied principle since the time of Ireneaus (who developed this doctrine in 150 A.D. to combat novel doctrines in his own time). Just because someone has been ordained by someone else is no guarantee that they will indeed follow in the teaching of their mentor. I don’t want to downplay the importance of the “laying on of hands” for there are real hands involved, but I don’t want to mystify it as some sort of sacrament the way others have done. We need balance.
It would take a level headed Evangelical community of leaders and scholars to come together to agree on a “regula fide” (rule of faith) which all agree comprise what are the essentials and the norms of Christian teaching.
Are you meaning to include Catholic and Orthodox in this circle?
No. It is Evangelical. It would not be something Orthodox or Roman Catholics would agree with us on. This does not mean that we believe that all those who are outside this circle are damned to the fires of Hell. Therefore, it is not something that is meant to point our nose in the air. More than likely, most Fundamentalists (esp. of the KJV Only variety) would not be able to hold to it. But, then again, it is an Evangelical proposal for our own identity!
At the very least, it would go a long way in defining what it means to be an Evangelical. It would also provide some informal oversight, not for the purpose of discipline or division, but for one of perception and unity among those who carry this particular “calling card.”
Do you really think it is possible for Evangelicals to agree on what is essential and what is not?
Believe it or not, I do. I see it all the time. While I agree that this would not be easy to determine what are the essentials, I just don’t think it would be as hard as many might assume. In truth, I just don’t think that most people have ever had any formal thoughts (much less education) on how to determine essentials and non-essentials. I would have four proposed criteria:
1. Does the Bible speak clearly to the issue
2. Does the Bible explicitly identify this issue as an essential
3. Does the history of the church speak clearly to this issue
4. Does the history of the church identify this issues as essential
I believe that all of these must be present for something to be considered essential (and yes, I do hold to sola Scriptura). And, did I say all of these? You can see more about this here (although the article needs revision).
Then I think that we can identify Evangelical distinctive within these essential (i.e. what is particularly evangelical about them?) This will give room for development. It will take a lot of thought as to what constitutes legitimate development of a doctrine, but this has been needed for some time. Again, this is another thing (development of doctrine) which has not received proper attention. I have written some on this (please note: the post does not have anything to do with the “Emerging Church”).
Are you proposing another denomination or that we lose denominational distinctives!!?
No, this is not suggesting that we lose denominational distinctives. In other words, rethinking or instituting a form of Evangelical apostolic succession is not the creation of a new denomination.
Neither is there an institution which regulates this “movement.” Like the reformation, this is a spirit of revival and a mood of fidelity that intoxicates the church.
Of course there can be books written on the subject, statements of declaration, courses offered, and sermons preached. It goes without saying that this will include a more serious attitude toward theological discipleship to root people in Scripture and in history. There would have to be a formal and concerted push that would require the cooperation of many leaders, churches and ministries.
Similar Posts:
- Theology Unplugged: What is the “True” Church #2
- In Defense of Sola Scriptura – Part Six – Apostolic Succession?
- Evangelicals: Lets Rethink Apostolic Succession
- Why Evangelicals Need Apostolic Succession
- The Catholic Church is a Cult
Loading ...
16 Comments
Like or Dislike:
0
Thank you for posting this. I am excited to see where this goes as it is something that I have been struggling with lately. All of the “mini Popes” around the country are a bit scary in that they have no oversight and often no sense of the historical faith that we profess. Yet I also acknowledge the difficulties that come with the older, more established organizations.
Like or Dislike:
0
A couple of thoughts. First, fundamentalists would be a bit outraged to think that you don’t consider them evangelicals! And, from a public perception, most people equate evangelicalism with fundamentalism, whether we like it or not. But that is another issue altogether.
Second, I think when you start trying to reach a credo that enough can sign on to, you would have such a “lowest common denominator” that it would end up just being the Nicene Creed or something similar.
And, ultimately, I am not sure where this would be going. You started with ordination based on Apostolic Succession, in which people are given a “stamp of approval” so that others can feel comfortable with them. Who gives the stamp? And who gave THEM a stamp? And, without a person-to-person tie back the Apostles, it really has nothing to do with “succession” at all. It would redefine the word “succession” so radically that it would be a bit intellectually dishonest to even use the phrase.
As it is, each major denomination DOES have their statement of faith that they have to sign onto, and they do get a stamp of approval from their leadership which tells all those who are interested that this person not only believes the right things, but has the proper training.
So, the only place a “stamp” would be needed is among those who are outside of an established denomination, in which case any “stamping” body would simply be saying that this person meets this lowest common denominator set of beliefs. This could be useful to some extent, I suppose.
But, in the end, you seem to say it is not really about a “stamp of approval”, but more of a push to refocus on what the Apostle’s taught so that we our leaders can identify themselves with that teaching. But this movement has been going already for years. So, I am still a bit lost here.
Like or Dislike:
0
I recently finished watching the HBO series John Adams. Quite excellent, even if it did take a few unnecessary liberties with some history and facts.
Distrust of the common man by the government versus distrust of the government by the common man seemed to be what caused John Adams (the former) and Thomas Jefferson (the latter), who were otherwise friends and fellow patriots, to oppose each other in some very nasty ways. Adams accused Jefferson of wanting anarchy, and Jefferson accused Adams of wanting to reinstate a monarchy (Jefferson felt that Adams’ time spent in Europe had infected him).
I think there is an inherent Adams-Jefferson situation in desires or efforts to impose theological and ordinational requirements on the church and its members and leaders, and in the counter-efforts to resist them. Viva la revolucion!
Like or Dislike:
0
Except for fundamentalists who wouldn’t want to be associated with the compromise & looseness of evangelicalism!
Who might be the kind of fundamentalists Michael had in mind.
Like or Dislike:
0
Ah, but they don’t see that “looseness and compromise” as associated with the word evangelical. They think that evangelical and fundamentalist are synonyms. They see the “compromisers” as something very different, not evangelical at all. As one who attends a fundamentalist church (for family reasons), I know how they think and they would say you were hijacking and distorting the word evangelical to apply it to a non-fundamentalist church.
Very ironic, when you think about it.
Like or Dislike:
0
Vance,
Fundamentalists aren’t monolithic in how they use terms.
Like or Dislike:
0
“No. Apostolic Succession does not necessitate a succession in person, just a succession in teaching.”
Okay… I think I get it.
So basically, we as parishioners should be asking our teachers who ordained/trained them, and checking to see whether those people still endorse their teaching. Thus, we can have some confidence that the teaching we’re receiving is not mere innovation.
Is that close?
-Wm
Like or Dislike:
0
Wm, it is close, but only half. I do believe that there is going to be a higher responsibility among those who ordained to the ordained, but it is much more. It really has to do with a vitalization of the realization that we are passing on the faith of THE church, not just the faith of our particular church or how I see it as I read the Bible last night. It is placing our selves under the Holy Spirit and the beliefs that he has given us, not only subjectively, but through the passing on through the history of the church. It is the extraction of novelty and aberrancy through accountability.
It does not have as much to do with how it is expressed as it does “what” is expressed.
It is the joining of hand with those who have gone before us. It is the glory of the proclamation of the Gospel tempered with a fear of misrepresentation.
It is the applying of the assumption that the Holy Spirit has been with the Church that has gone before us and we stand upon their shoulders. Even if we believe that their are people, leaders, popes, and epochs that have abused the truth, this gives us no license redefine the Gospel the way we see it.
I don’t want to blow this out of proportion (and I continue to say this), there is nothing that I am proposing that is not already an established unspoken among many of us (and from what I have seen, you as well). It is what Evangelicalism has been about. I am simply saying that we need to make this unspoken a spoken. And the primary reason I bring this up the way I do is because in the last ten years the most prolific “Evangelicals” do not really qualify for the title, yet they are defining who we are. These people don’t, in my opinion, represent the historic or Biblical faith of Christianity even if God may use their proclamation.
Like or Dislike:
0
I totally agree with your ideas, but I’m not sure they are practical. Can we really agree on essentials? I am an ordained Pastor in the Stone-Campbell tradition. We have been allowed into the fellowship of the Evangelical Theological Society (I am a student member), but I know some who disagree with our inclusion due to our belief that salvation occurs in baptism (not because of baptism, but at the time of baptism). Now, I can wholeheartedly say that I believe in salvation upon the basis of faith alone. Yet, some would deny that I can agree to that because of my theology of baptism. Now sola fide is a pretty central doctrine to Evangelicals, so would those from the Stone-Campbell tradition be allowed to be a part of this broad umbrella of “historical evangelicalism?” This is only one example out of many demonstrating the difficulties of first agreeing on essentials, and then sorting through the doctrinal details to decide who is and is not violating those essenitala. I’m not knocking your idea, because I really like it. I just think it is going to be very difficult to put into practice, even if you can get enough evangelicals to put their heads together on it. After all, we don’t exactly have a long history of peaceful relations.
Like or Dislike:
0
Do you have an idea of what you would consider in the essentials? Do you include Calvinism (not wanting to discuss this, just what you think)?
You are trying to prevent heretical movements; I am not certain you can. You introduce a process to prevent abuse. Abuse will still occur but the new system will strait-jacket others.
I guess the idea is that righteousness can prevail and unrighteousness gets checked, but I am concerned that the effects will be the opposite.
Like or Dislike:
0
Bethyada,
No, I would not in any way consider Calvinism an essential to the history of the church nor would I consider it an essential or priority within Evangelicalism. It would not make the cut!
This is not simply to prevent heresy, but to preserve identity.
As well, I need to reiterate or clarify that that which is essential to Christianity is not what I am dealing with here. That would draw the circle to broadly for Evangelicalism. We are not attempting to promote some type of minimalism. However, the essentials to Christianity would have to be present! Hence the four criteria. After this, we would have to discuss what are the distinctives within this large circle that identify Evangelicalism, or, in this case, “Historic Evangelicalism” (if that were the name). This is where we would have to have much discussion on “doctrinal development” and justifying what constitutes legitimate development (i.e. sola Scriptura, sola fide, etc.)
Again, it sounds more complex than it actually is. It is just making what has been unspoken in Evangelicalism as a movement to something that is more accessible and meaningful.
Who could be a part of this movement?
The same who are a part of it now! Evangelical Baptists, Presbyterians, Reformed, Anglicans, Bible Church, Community Churches, and anyone who identifies with Evangelicalism as a movement based on doctrine, truth, and belief and the necessity of impacting the world with the Gospel.
Like or Dislike:
0
“What about Evangelical doctrines which are novel such as sola Scripture and sola fide?
I would argue that they are not novel at all. I would grant that their articulation was somewhat dormant, but this in no way suggests non-existence.”
If there are two options: One rule of faith in the Church (sola scriptura) and more than one (scripture plus tradition), I think it’s fair to say that only the latter has a reasonable claim of continuous 2000 year existence. Where are these sola scriptura advocates… oh say in the year 1000? Or those who didn’t believe in the sacramental clergy in 1000AD? Or baptismal regeneration? Or the reality of Christ’s body in the Eucharist? Or for that matter, the apostolic succession (not your version thereof).
If you think sola scriptura has a 2000 year existence, it must have been extremely well hidden. So well hidden, that one might equally plausibly claim that any old belief has a 2000 year history. Like the Trail of Blood baptist fantasy.
That being the case, your version of apostolic doesn’t rule out any silliness. You can’t make continuity for your beliefs exist through pure force of will.
Like or Dislike:
0
John, my friend, you are going in too many directions. However, I will point you to my defense of Sola Scriptura. Although it is a long read and, because of this, I don’t really expect you to read it, it is the best I can do with your response.
I will point you to the “Historical Defense of Sola Scriptura” to help you see that where I am coming from is not too hard to defend, even if you don’t agree: http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/2009/04/in-defense-of-sola-scriptura-part-10-a-historical-defense/. Please understand that if you respond to it there, I will not be able to engage as I can’t hardly find time to engage in current posts, much less all the activity of past posts.
God bless and have a great weekend.
Like or Dislike:
0
Interesting thesis here. I like it!
Re: 2nd question/answer and Chalcedon for instance, consider:
“the Chalcedonian Fathers were accepting, and giving conciliar authority to, what had had its place in the Church’s Christological thought from earliest days.” R. V. Sellers, The Council of Chalcedon (London: SPCK, 1953), 217.
and…
“To say that the symbol of Chalcedon is couched in the conceptuality of its time– what other conceptuality could it have used?–is not to deny its candidature for truth, and in two senses: as an accurate summary of what the New Testament says about Jesus and as the truth about who Jesus is.” Colin Gunton, “Using and Being Used: Scripture and Systematic Theology,” in Theology Today (1990) 47:231
From my Christ and Chalcedon: Nature, Minds, and Pluralism .
Therefore, the Chalcedon confession is a summary of the inspired, authoritative teachings of New Testament Scripture.
Like or Dislike:
0
Have you considered the implications for believers in countries like China? The official Three Self churches of China may be unable to adopt this apostolic teaching because of government oversight. Underground church believers can, but this may do more harm than good. The Three Self churches and underground churches already have enough friction between them. The creation of this apostolic succession in the West may create some friction, but the potential for division in China is severe.
Some may say, “well, as long as they hold to the teachings in their hearts and minds, it’s unecessary to have some sort of formal adoption.” If so, then what’s the point of creating it in the first place? Why don’t we just do a better job at preaching and teaching?
Like or Dislike:
0
Michael, the issue doesn’t seem to be whether you can find sola scriptura in some church fathers, but whether you can find a continuity through history for that teaching.
I can after all find Arians from that time period. Does that mean your succession theory allows for teaching Arianism? If so, what have you gained?
BTW, there are major problems in a thesis that these fathers held your position on sola scriptura, but you problably know that already.
More Comments: