Why Evangelicals Need Apostolic Succession
It is no secret that I am an advocate of some sort of Evangelical return to “Apostolic Succession.” (Read my “Evangelicals: Let’s Rethink Apostolic Succession“). The need for this has never been greater. In fact, I would be willing to step out on a limb and say that a deeper understanding and application of the principles of apostolic succession is vital to our survival.
Quick Working Definition of Apostolic Succession:
“The belief that the foundational stability and fidelity of the church is found in a firm adherence to the apostles teachings which have been passed on from generation to generation. This “passing on” takes on a form of ordination or approval of the succeeding generation by those that have gone before them. The goal is to create an accountability and a confidence that the faith that we proclaim is indeed the faith that the Apostles handed down. This is an antidote to divisive novelty and heresy of doctrine. The assumption is that the Christian faith cannot be now what it was not before.”
This will not only guard against novelty and heresy, but will restore a healthy fear that all must have when we find ourselves as representatives of the faith once for all delivered to the saints (Jude 1:3; )
My belief is that we can maintain a firm adherence to the Evangelical priorities of sola Scriptura and the priesthood of all believers, yet separate ourselves from the “free church” mayhem that is, understandably, driving Evangelicals to more institutionalized traditions that have just as many problems of their own, and from which we fled four-hundred years ago.
Enough of that…Here is a short story to illustrate this need. I think the situation speaks for itself.
*NOTE: While this story is true, names, addresses, and particular details have been changed for obvious purposes.
While on the INTERNET the other day, my friend came across a pastor who he thought had some interesting comments. This pastor had the title of Rev. This means that he is either a self-proclaimed minister or he has been ordained in an official capacity by an organization that has the legal right to declare someone a minister (who knows?).
Theoretically, an ordination gives the ordained party the approval of an established community to minister in the Church. From the standpoint of the government, this party is then recognized as a “religious worker.” Once the approval is official, the newly ordained Rev. has many benefits, among those is the tax exempt status with regards to housing allowance (whatever bills you pay with respect to your home, you don’t get taxed on). In the Christian church, they are recognized as a minister of the Gospel of Jesus Christ and can lead, pastor, or even start a church.
My friend went to the website of the organization that ordained this individual and noticed that they take ordination applications online. Here is what it said:
“Get ordained fast and easily, and begin your own ministry! As a legally ordained reverend, you will be able to conduct weddings, perform funerals, baptisms and other functions of the ministry.”
(Mom…help me!)
This was a bit confusing to him since he did not know anyone from the ordination committee and they did not know him, yet they were going to allow him to apply?
I know what you are thinking—there must be a catch. Money has to be involved somehow. But this is not the case. The website says:
“There is no charge or obligation connected to your ordination. Ordination is for life, without charge . . .”
(Umm…did they say “no obligation.” How would you like to get approved to practice medicine by this type of group?)
“Well,” you might say, “this cannot be that easy. How would this group know whether or not I have been truly called into ministry?” The answer is that your ordination will be reviewed by a team of pastors (who no doubt were ordained by the same organization) who will carefully and prayerfully consider your application. Here is what they say:
“Your ordination request will be reviewed by pastoral staff.”
Just in case you thought that this was a little fishy, the committee adds,
“Please understand that instant online ordinations do not exist. The internet cannot ordain you. Your ordination request must be reviewed before your ordination can be legal. You cannot be given your credentials automatically by a computer!”
Phew! And I thought that this smelled of the famous St. Peter’s Basilica ordinations of the 16th century. No, this is serious business folks. We are talking about the church.
Oh one more thing. I forgot to finish the sentence earlier. This would be a good time to do so for those of you who fear you still might not be qualified for ordination into ministry.
“There is no charge or obligation connected to your ordination. Ordination is for life, without charge and without question of faith.”
No question of faith? What does this ordination committee review? I guess they just make sure that your name is spelled right and that you are a real person. Hold that thought. No, scratch that. They don’t check to see if you are a real person.
Here is the response that my friend got within an hour of his application (with some alterations to protect the parties involved):
_________________
Butch Peters
1239 Morton Rd
Leslie TX
has been ordained as a minister of the
________ ____ Church, USA.
Date of Ordination: 1/29/2008
by ________ _______, Pastor
What you did not notice was that after prayerful consideration by the pastoral ordination committee of this Church, my friend just ordained his dog. Rev. Butch now has the legal right to pastor or start a church and is tax exempt from all housing.
Amen Butch.
Folks, this is serious stuff. And it is not really funny. There are many people out there leading God’s people who simply are not qualified in any way. They are running around starting churches. They are shepherding the flock of God. Ordination is serious business (or it should be). There has got to be a higher accountability.
If you want to be a minister, great. God speed. But be willing to go through the necessary training and approval process. Cracker Jack ordinations are immoral.
Evangelicals, this is happening in our communities. I know of a very well known evangelical church that has over 130 pastors without any training or what I would consider to be valid ordination. Yes, everyone is a priest and everyone is charged with the Gospel proclamation, but this does not mean that you are automatically within the succession of the Apostles’ teaching.
If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!- Evangelicals: Let's Rethink Apostolic Succession
- Confessions: What I Hate About Ministry
- Theology Unplugged: What is the “True” Church #2
- The Removal of My Ordination
- In Defense of Sola Scriptura – Part Six – Apostolic Succession?
Print This Post
Loading ...
Vance on 23 Jul 2009 at 5:18 pm #
I hear where you are coming from, Michael. My father was ordained in the Assembly of God and pastored for over 30 years before retiring. And the whole religious shyster angle is, indeed, dangerous. But there is still a serious fly in the ointment of your position. Who ordains the ordainers, etc, and how far does this need to go back? A “chain of title” (speaking as an attorney here) is only as good as its weakest link and I am positive that just about everyone we would consider a valid ordainer today has a weak, or even broken, link in their chain back to the Apostles.
Not to mention (using another, maybe tortured, analogy) the idea that such links can come to resemble a VHS copy that has been duplicated too often. There have been vast changes in doctrine and practice over the two thousand years since Paul and I am convinced that none of the Apostles would feel comfortable in any Christian church today (except may an Eastern Orthodox?). They would question a LOT of what even the most “qualified” ordainer believes and practices.
Yes, we have the touchstone of Scripture to “keep it real”, but then all we do is fight over what that touchstone really is telling us. While I think that we *should* all follow those who are ordained under men and organizations we respect, I don’t think there is anything “magic” or supernaturally confirming about the process of ordination. I think it is just a safeguard.
So, yes, I would agree that a person without any training or provenance or backing in some way should be avoided at all costs, but I also believe that HAVING such a credential from a known organization may not make the recipient automatically “kosher” (to complete my entirely random comparisons).
Denita on 23 Jul 2009 at 5:22 pm #
Oh this sounds all too familiar. When I and my husband were younger, unregenerate, and thoroughly unrepentant, we applied for ordinations through an organization that I strongly suspect is the same as the one you’re describing. Their whole tag was that you could now legally apply for tax-exempt status, as well as the novelty of performing legally-binding marriages and you could proudly display their fill-in-the-blank nonsense piece of paper on the wall for all to point and laugh at.
We’re not laughing now, believe me. I’m so thankful that our Heavenly Father has such infinite patience for his ill-behaved and mocking children. And doubly thankful that the Son covered our disgusting blasphemy with His blood.
Luke on 23 Jul 2009 at 5:25 pm #
“Apostolic succession” sounds great, so long as we seek to get back to the apostles and Jesus and early church instead of getting back to the Reformation. Some call N.T. Wright’s views “novel,” but he is seeking to do exactly that, and the danger I see with a desire for “apostolic succession” is that most will claim that means we sign on to everything Augustine, Anselm, Luther, Calvin, and Edwards say. “Apostlic succession” is not synonymous with “Reformers succession,” although many would have us believe that way.
EricW on 23 Jul 2009 at 8:31 pm #
The only Apostolic Succession churches I know of that can trace fairly well that their succession of pastors, bishops, etc., goes back to the time of the Apostles or shortly thereafter – i.e., that can meet the legitimacy of their ordination test that you are proposing – are the Roman Catholic Church and the various Orthodox (Eastern and so-called “Oriental,” Coptic, Ethiopian, Nestorian, etc.) Churches.
And every one of them holds and claims as essential parts of “the faith that the Apostles handed down,” “the faith once for all delivered to the saints,” such things as baptismal regeneration for the removal of sin(s), chrismation for receiving the Holy Spirit, and the necessity of the office of priest to offer and/or re-present the elements of the Eucharist as – or to become – the Real Body and Blood of Jesus, which is to be partaken of only by those who are in proper baptismal and creedal/confessional relationship with that group.
In other words, Michael, the only way for you to impose or assert the kind of thing you want is for you and those who agree with you to enter one of the above churches.
So will it be Rome, Constantinople, Ethiopia, Egypt? Whither goest thou?
C Michael Patton on 23 Jul 2009 at 9:03 pm #
My more formal proposal of Apostolic Succession does not necessitate a succession in person, just a succession in teaching.
It would take an 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.
I think this sounds harder than it actually is. I don’t think establishing a regula fide would be too difficult. Here is a suggested starting point: http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/2008/06/how-do-you-know-if-a-doctrine-is-essential-three-criteria/
I actually have one more criteria to add.
Of course it would not be something Orthodox or Roman Catholics would agree on. As well, most Fundamentalists (esp of the KJV Only variety) would not be able to hold to it. But, then again, it is an Evangelical proposal!
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 of perception and unity among those who carry this particular “calling card.”
Again, this is doable, I really believe. It would simply take some time to plan out.
Kyle Dillon on 23 Jul 2009 at 10:49 pm #
Michael, could you please clarify a couple points for me? You are saying that the teaching (rather than the office) of the Apostles needs to be affirmed, correct? Meaning, we won’t start calling our head pastors, apostles, right? If that is the case, I am totally on board. But doesn’t any church that affirms the Apostles’ Creed already do that? “…I believe in one holy, catholic, and apostolic church…”
You also raise the point of historical continuity. My reservation here is that the church has not always affirmed biblical teaching (I’m thinking sola fide, for one). So it seems that there is at least a partial break in historical continuity of the Apostles’ teaching. In other words, Evangelicals cannot necessarily trace all of their doctrines back to the Apostles in unbroken succession.
Cory Howell on 23 Jul 2009 at 10:50 pm #
I got an “ordination” from the First Church of the Internet a couple years back. I don’t consider myself an ordained minister, of course. I just had to see how this process worked. Much like the story you told, all I had to do was send an e-mail to the guy who ran the site. I also had to send a brief “testimony” and pledge that I would not use my “ordination” to perform homosexual marriages. Later that day, I got a “letter of ordination” from the Rev. (who shall remain nameless). Worthless. But there are all sorts of people who post on their site, who call themselves Reverend, and I believe the site still offers various theology programs and such, wherein the participant can pay a small fee and earn a Master or Doctor of “degree.”
Interesting thing is, there is a whole FAQ on the site that explains how “ordination” is only what you make it. Which, of course, contains a small grain of truth. It may also interest you to know that, the last time I logged on to the site, there were a whole lot of people complaining that they had sent money for credentials or degrees, and had never received anything back. I think you’re right, Michael. Sometimes a little apostolic succession would be nice…
Eclectic Christian - Michael Bell on 23 Jul 2009 at 10:56 pm #
Hi Michael,
One difficulty I see is in how we define what is essential. For example, you talk about the “Priesthood of all believers”. In reality, many evangelical believe in a priesthood of 50 percent of believers, believing that certain roles are restricted because of gender.
It is an area where it is difficult to find middle ground. If my wife believes that God has gifted her in a certain way, and a church doesn’t let her exercise those gifts, it is really hard to unity in this matter. For me, this is an essential, because it relates to so much of what we do in the church, including evangelism and discipleship.
Mike Bell
C Michael Patton on 24 Jul 2009 at 12:49 am #
Kyle, this does not in any way say that people are to carry on the “office” of apostle nor its authoritative prophetic office. 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.
Neither does it suppose that there cannot be development in doctrine. What we pass on is the DNA of the faith. It can take shape and form as it grows and it can shape itself in individual cultures.
The apostolic succession that I am an advocate of is already an unspoken for many of us. 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.
I have proposed that we call this “Historic Evangelicalism.” 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.
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.
C Michael Patton on 24 Jul 2009 at 12:56 am #
Michael (and others),
I agree that this would not be easy to determine what are the essentials, but I also 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 on how to determine essentials and non-essentials. I would have four:
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.
Then I think that we can identify Evangelical distinctives 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 that we have not given proper attention.
C Michael Patton on 24 Jul 2009 at 1:02 am #
Finally (as you all can see, this is something that is very important to me), I think it was be reiterated (or iterated) that this is not suggesting that we lose all denominational distinctive. 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 Evangelicalism.
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.
Eric S. Mueller on 24 Jul 2009 at 6:22 am #
Early in my Christian walk (around 2002 or 2003), I came across that website. I seriously considered it and kept going back to it. I thought it would be cool to be ordained, but for some reason I never could pull the trigger. Then I found a piece of text on their website that basically says with their ordination, you have to let others teach and believe whatever they want. Essentially, it’s universalism. I also notice having checked their website a graphic with the text “Be at peace with God, whatever you conceive him to be.”
I realized that if I were to minister in any capacity as a Christian, I could not hold office in an organization that expects universalism to be upheld as a virtue. How could I preach Jesus while at the same time holding a credential that requires me to tell people they don’t have to believe in Him?
Lisa Robinson on 24 Jul 2009 at 6:56 am #
I think one of the biggest problems with this proposal is that groups that fall outside whatever circle is set would form their own institutionalized process, by which the average Joe seeker or uninformed Christian would make no distinction. And the point of protecting Apostolic succession is to hand down the faith, especially to these groups so they know what they are getting into. But then again, maybe it would further highlight distinctions, and thus deviant or heretical teachings.
That said, I do agree there needs to be some define standard. Has this ever been raised at ETS?
Lisa Robinson on 24 Jul 2009 at 7:06 am #
Hi Michael (Eclectic), I wouldn’t think the priesthood of the believer refers to specific functions in the church that would raise issues of complementarian vs. egalitarian. I believe it to be the ability of all believers to come directly to God through Christ and govern their lives according to their own convictions of offering sacrifices to Him. This is opposed to an intermediary dictating those things for us. Maybe I’m wrong, but this is how I have understood the priesthood of the believer.
EricW on 24 Jul 2009 at 8:19 am #
You’re a decade late and a few million dollars short. IHOPU (IHOP University) has already set the stage for redefining and taking over the church and setting it straight:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mrr9Zz6hx60
Don’t underestimate IHOP’s influence; it’s worldwide.
Website:
http://www.ihop.org
and
http://www.ihop.org/Group/Group.aspx?ID=1000040187
EricW on 24 Jul 2009 at 8:19 am #
You’re a decade late and a few million dollars short. IHOPU (IHOP University) has already set the stage for redefining and taking over the church and setting it straight:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mrr9Zz6hx60
Don’t underestimate IHOP’s influence; it’s worldwide.
Website:
ihop.org
and
ihop.org/Group/Group.aspx?ID=1000040187
In 20 years you’ll either be one of them, or picking through the debris and healing the damaged and disillusioned.
Lisa Robinson on 24 Jul 2009 at 8:26 am #
Oh my, at first I thought you were talking about pancakes.
Sadly, I think you are right.
EricW on 24 Jul 2009 at 8:36 am #
Lisa:
I just returned from a trip to Israel, and Mike Bickle’s and IHOP’s influence was quite visible/audible (in terms of books and worship music and services) among the messianic and other believers we fellowshiped with there.
(We lived in KC when Bickle’s church started and attended it for awhile from the very beginning. We were there when the Kansas City Prophets issue came to a head. Google for it if you don’t know what I’m talking about. This IHOP thing has been in the works since the late-1980s, at least in early form.)
Ernie Gruen, the Kansas City pastor who first blew the whistle on this:
http://thegreycoats.wordpress.com/the-vindication-of-ernie-gruen/
(the crossed-out links still work)
passed away on June 1 of this year.
Robert Jimenez on 24 Jul 2009 at 11:14 am #
Michael, although I think you have a noble thought and passion I seriously doubt this would ever work. Christianity today is so diversified that I am not sure the various evangelical groups would buy into your 4 suggestions.
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
Your last two could be misleading, silence or lack practice on behalf of a particular generation does not equate to what we should or should not practice today. Certainly one should reflect and consider, but I think much of what N.T. Wright has been writing on is at least on a path that we should rethink.
Also your first two questions, they will be filtered by which sort of evangelicalism you currently hold to. If you are a reformed evangelical or whatever other position you hold to, then your views are are going to be highly tainted as to what it means “Does the bible speak clearly or explicitly”
Without you even mentioning it on this blog post people are already making charges against groups that hold to a Charismatic position (i.e. IHOP). Hey I don’t know and honestly don’t care what IHOP is doing. Maybe there is some good out of it??? As you can see the divisions begin before you even start.
Robert Jimenez on 24 Jul 2009 at 11:19 am #
Oh and I just noticed the site that is reference “TheGreyCoats”, they are a bunch of radical, viscous, reformed bloggers I have ever come across.
***Sarcasm alert*** I did not enjoy my time at there site at all. Don’t you dare disagree with any of their positions because they are the true apostolic successors that you have been looking for.***Sarcasm alert***
John on 25 Jul 2009 at 1:49 am #
It’s just as well dogs are good at shepherding flocks! I only hope Butch is a sheep-dog.
“My more formal proposal of Apostolic Succession does not necessitate a succession in person, just a succession in teaching.”
But there is no continuous succession in teaching in evangelicalism. If there is no succession, then suggesting a principle of succession is promoting a nonsense.
If a non-continuous succession is enough, then that of course is a meaningless succession since you can just make a break again with no in principle problem.
I don’t understand this posting.
C Michael Patton on 25 Jul 2009 at 1:54 am #
John, why would succession require personal agencies that are personally aquainted? Can one not be a disciple of someone’s teaching even though they have never met?
I don’t get why you would assume the necessity of personal relationship (if that is what you are saying).
Joe on 25 Jul 2009 at 3:17 pm #
You may have addressed this somewhere. But what do you do with the claim by the Roman Catholic Church, that Apostolic Succession means that Jesus handed authority to the apostle Peter – who passed it on only to the Popes?
The claim of the CHurch is that the original apostles had authority, and they founded the Church and bishops of the day – later called the Roman Catholic Church – as their successors. So that no one but the Roman Catholic Church has the authority to pronounce on religious matters.
John on 27 Jul 2009 at 7:14 am #
“John, why would succession require personal agencies that are personally aquainted?”
That’s ok, but then are you going to declare yourself in succession from Chrysostom or something? Does this succession have arbitrarily large chronological gaps?
Ok, let’s say you can have these big gaps. How do be in succession from Basil, Gregory, and Chrysostom, and not end up being Eastern Orthodox anyway? Or don’t you want to be in succession from them, you want to be in succession from Luther? So you pick and choose who to succeed from, in which case you could just as well succeed from people holding any old theological position?
I’m still not seeing how evangelical apostolic succession does anything.
Paul Wilkinson on 27 Jul 2009 at 7:18 pm #
If Butch is a hound, does it therefore follow that the church he starts would be a “seeker” church?
But seriously…
Many years ago a “pastor” from a local fringe church came into our bookstore requesting a concordance. I showed him a couple and then he started asking further questions; very, very, very, basic questions. It started to dawn on me that this “pastor” had never seen or used such a thing before. I (a layperson) was teaching him (a pastor) how to use a concordance.
At that point, I decided there are four fundamental questions that have to be answered of such people: (a) Who called you to come here and start this church? (b) Who sent you? (c) Who trained you? (d) To whom are you accountable?
I think they are good questions. Problem is, several years later I felt an unmistakable calling to begin a church plant in our area. Quite honestly, if that test were in place, depending on the standard, I might have easily failed on all four points. (But in fairness, I was constantly scanning the horizon waiting for someone to assume a proper pastorate among our little flock; church planting can be segregated from the larger topic at issue here.)
Oh, and then later there was the guy who said (a) God called me; (b) God sent me; (c) God taught me; (d) I am accountable to God.
Joe on 04 Aug 2009 at 1:32 pm #
Do you think any single committee, could ever really agree, and be widely accepted, on what the original teaching of the Bible really was? The reason we have so many different denominations, is that the center in the past, never held.
Though to some extent, reasonable platforms for standardization, exist when a preacher agrees to teach for a given recognized denomination. With its rules, dogmas, and so forth.