A is for…

Continuing my discussion of "what makes a church a Church" from the last post...

In the film, “The Apostle”, Robert Duval plays “Sonny” a self-styled and self proclaimed “apostle” and preacher who feels sent by God to found a church while at the same time running from the law.  After Sonny commits a crime in a moment of passion, he flees and then re-baptizes himself in an solo ceremony that is both part being “born again (again) and re-ordained to the ministry of Jesus.  For Sonny, his self-immersion is no less legitimate than if he was sitting in the middle of Westminster Abbey, (perhaps even more so) because he is confident that he hears the call of the Spirit telling him, like Paul on the road to Damascus, that God is sending him to be an Apostle to a nearby church that is in need of a preacher. 

While most Christians (and even pastors!) I know, would take issue with Sonny’s self-ordination, they would struggle with explaining what exactly is so wrong.  Can’t the Spirit speak to and call anyone?  Do we really need a church to baptize, ordain, or otherwise set someone apart for ministry?  Isn't the "calling of the Spirit" and the affirmation of people enough?

Or is there a need for some kind of authority, some kind of passing on the mantle of ministry, some kind of continuity and communal acknowledgement of the call of God in one’s life?  How exactly does the Spirit (and the faith) get "handed down" (Jude 3)? And frankly, without ever intending to, isn’t what Sonny is doing pretty much the same as what so many who start their own ministries, plant their own churches, begin their own Bible studies are doing? 

In an early Christian text (dated between 95-150 AD), The Didache, Christian communities are given instruction for evaluating a new prophet or itinerant preacher.  First the teacher’s message must be evaluated by whether it conforms to the “apostolic message” preached and passed on by the church.  But that is not all.  If prophet stays more than two days without working, ask for money or teach falsely, then his words are to be ignored.  If on the other hand, he only depends on the hospitality of the community for a day or two, only asks for enough bread to make it to the next town, or willingly stays and works, then—if the messages prove consistent with the apostolic instruction—the prophet is to be welcomed and the community is charged with caring for his needs. (Didache 11-13)

This little snippet from a writing that was considered by some to be “almost” scripture reminds us that even in the earliest church, church leaders were evaluated—even “ordained and installed”, if you will—based on two standards. One was their character (as demonstrated in their eagerness not to “fleece the flock”), the other was the conformity of their teaching with the teaching of the apostles.  This “rule of faith” as it became known by the 2nd Century was a key marker for discerning the true faith in the time before there was consensus on the canon of the Scripture.

While today, the Scriptures are the ultimate authority for the church, (see the next post on “Biblical (Berean) faithfulness”), one of the other marks of the church from the earliest days after Pentecost is the continuity with both the message and the authority of the Apostles and the submission of future generations to authority of the first generation.  Or to put it another way: "A is for Apostolic Authority."

Perhaps the greatest model for this life of submission and deference to apostolic authority is no less than perhaps the greatest apostle, Paul.  Paul has an undeniable and life altering encounter with the risen Christ on the road to Damascus, where he is knocked, blinded off his horse.  But the voice of the Spirit commands him to seek out a Christian in a nearby town to receive back his sight and hear the prophecy of his future ministry (Acts 9).  As he struggles to change his reputation from persecutor of the church to apostle of the church, he depends on the credibility of Barnabas (Acts 9:26-31), he yields to the original apostles, is sent out to the Gentiles (Acts 13), and then repeatedly validates his ministry to the Gentiles by the affirmation of the “pillars” (Galatians 2:1-10). 

Even the first “counsel” of Acts 15 demonstrates the strong continuity and unity among all the churches through their conformity with the message of the apostles and the confirmation of the apostolic church on the new gentile-Christian communities.

For us today, there is wisdom to be re-considered here as we set about establishing for ourselves “spiritual mini-movements” that we believe are enhancing our faith in Jesus Christ and our desire to live out the Kingdom.  More and more Christians are following the road of “Self-Ordained Sonny” and not the road of submission and continuity with the established church, which at least through some thin line can be traced back to the original apostles. 

The first mark of a true church (whether it be an urban storefront, suburban ware house, tall-steepled cathedral, or home church) is that it has to demonstrate some kind of continuity in both the message and authority of the apostolic line.  I realize that for many of us this sound overly “authoritarian” or even (gasp!) “catholic”, but I believe that unless a leader or group has been “sent,” then there is no church to “found”. 

Now church history will tell us that there has always been need for reformation of the established church and as a Protestant, I can not put any “tradition” as the ultimate authority, but before I go on to “B” and “Biblical faithfulness”, I want to ask us to consider if so many of the so-called revolutionary movements of the church are little more than American entrepreneurialism co-opted for our own personal preferences. 

The church, to be the church has from the beginning been about submission to God’s authority passed through the hands and lips of others, not our own self-ordination.

Comments

[David]

Thanks for your gracious and thoughtful words. In the blogosphere thinking and grace are not often combined. When you refer to a minister being sent do you mean by an established denomination or do you mean sent by God's Spirit? It seems to me that being sent by God's Spirit would be enough to found any type of ministry, given that God's Holy Spirit actually did the sending. I look forward to you upcoming posts on the issue.

[Bumble]

David, from the patterns of Acts, it seems like "sent" would be by the Spirit and through the community of faith. (I am not trying to sidestep "denomination", but I don't think that's really the issue.)

[James Petticrew]

Tod I am with you on this but with slight reservations. Firstly, I think the early church assumed an apostolic dimension that was ignored in subsequent church history in what developed in Christendom. Not only must a church be conformed to apostolic doctrine and submit to apostolic authority I would argue to be truly apostolic it must also be committed and involved in apostolic mission. On this understanding some very "orthodox" churches in church history were sub-apostolic and this may well have been the reason why reform movements moved out without their authority. I would argue Methodism is a prime example.
Also could the Reformation have happened according to your guidlines? Lets take Scotland because its my homeland and the homeland of Presbyterianism. Could Presbyterianism have come into existence without Knox and the other reformers defying the authority of the then established church? Could Presbyterianism have survived without the Covenanters defying the authority of the bishops appointed by Archbishop Laud?
So I agree the faith must be passed down through the community of faith but that community must be truly apostolic in the twofold sense I have outlined if its authority is to be binding.

[Tod]

James,
Thanks for writing. Your comments lead directly to two more of the "marks" that I will discuss: B: biblical faitnfulness and K: Kingdom Witness.

The issue of defiance is the exception that proves the rule. The dissenters left the "established" church because they believed that the church forfeited being the church by straying from the apostolic message. Their defiance was not considered just a matter of taste but of utmost seriousness and they could only "break" by asserting that they were in fact trying to be a true Church. Please see the previous post on Knox's marks of the church for example.

Please keep reading James and see if by the end of the list we have something that is helpful for both institutionalists and reformers alike.

[Bob]

Good article on "authority" of which is truly lacking in most churches today. From my perspective there are too many "self proclaimed" (sonny's) walking and talking like the church but have nothing to do with the church per sae. We live in a monsterously "I can do what I like" world and church where as a believer with little regard given to the "Word" or the "Church" that God has ordained and set up. It stems from members who refuse to come under the counsel of the Word (biblical authority) to churches who refuse to stand and act on the authority of the Word. I appreciate your insights that draw us all (no matter of denomination) back into the central focus of apostolic authority found in the Word of God.

[Don]

Tod-

Great post. A lot of what we see in "self-ordained" ministry today lacks biblical authority. It also lacks any sort of accountability. The reason I belong to an organization is for the support and a mutual accountability. When I was ordained, the bishop who spoke talked of the call, the cause, and the covenant. The call and cause are self explanitory, the covenant however, is my responsibility to each fellow minister on how I conduct myself and what I teach. The problem with a lot of "self-ordained" ministry is that it lacks accountability.

[James Petticrew]

I read the post in which you mentioned Knox, all that talk about the KIRK made me quite home sick :-)

[Alex]

Thanks Tod, I've been following your blog with interest from 'Down Under'. I thoroughly agree that there are too many independent movements and people in ministry.

That said, as a Baptist I am part of a movement where our founder self-baptised (albeit in the presence of others), and which sprung out of a reaction to the reforming movement!

I don't think being under 'apostolic authority' needs to mean institutional authority (and I'm not sure you're saying that). I think it does need to come from an attitude of submission to the Word, and to the broader church. There are movements in my homeland that are springing up with the blessing of others in the wider body, and working together with the body.

It's a tricky issue when our reformation tradition was kicked off by a split, and this has certainly accelerated in subsequent years.

[K T Cat]

Hi! I see us as natural allies. I just posted about kindness and how we benefit from it and if it can be used to make a point in your blog, I'd appreciate the link.

Best wishes,
KT

[David M. Smith]

“The church, to be the church has from the beginning been about submission to God’s authority passed through the hands and lips of others, not our own self-ordination”

Hi Tod,

It occurs to me that authority passed through the hands and lips of others is definitely a strength when the authority posses and teaches a truth or the truth. However, authority passed through the hands and lips of others can be a severe weakness when the authority teaches a belief that is false. If a belief is false, apostolic authority makes ridding the Church of a falsehood much more difficult.