I've written here before on my doubts regarding a present day apostolic succession. In short, when the earliest Christians were falling into dangerous heresies and schisms, the integrity of local communities was guarded by its leaders, who (probably) first were prophets and teachers, then presbyter-bishops, and later singular bishops. Those first presbyters were installed by the apostles, their faithfulness to the "faith once delivered" assured because their discipleship and ministry were formed in their relationship with the apostles. In turn, those leaders formed others in the faith to take their places of authority. On the basis of personal relationships and the redeeming work of the Holy Spirit, it was considered very likely that those leaders were able and faithful successors to the apostles in their ministry.
(In the late second century, it was a negative criterion whereby +Irenaeus of Lyons was able to discredit Gnostic teachers, who claimed a secret knowledge that the apostles gave to them, but not to the leaders the apostles had ordained.)
Clement unflinchingly upheld the qualifications of the Corinthians' deposed presbyters: they were ordained by the apostles as their successors, and in the utter absence of charges against them, they are not to be removed.
This raises a couple of questions that irritate my Anglican and Baptist sympathies, respectively. In what way is a contemporary apostolic succession valid? When is it really legitimate for a presbyter/pastor to leave one community for another?
An Alternative Apostolic Succession?
The Romans and some Anglicans (I won't make claims for the Eastern Orthodox) claim a mechanical succession: their presbyters and bishops were ordained by bishops ordained by bishops ... ordained by the apostles. Even if that were verifiably true, they could not make claims about their bishops being formed by those other bishops. The connection is mechanical, not relational, and it would require a special work of the Holy Spirit to give the benefits of the former relational connection in the absence of relationships. I don't think that's happened.
As a result, I'm not certain how ordination in the apostolic succession can be more legitimate than ordaination in the free (congregational) churches. It just may be that the Holy Spirit wishes for a different kind of system to emerge altogether.
Perhaps the Holy Spirit will form members of a community into Christians. Perhaps presbyters and teachers will be formed there, and all of the offices necessary for the life and growth of the Body of Christ in that particular place will be filled by Christians who have been formed for them by the Holy Spirit's work in each community. Separate communities in a region could form relationships, getting to know one another through time spent together, teaching and shared mission.
What further "recognition of ministry" would be required? If one is truly formed in the life of the community, shouldn't one serve that community? Shouldn't one be validated by one's reputation in that community, rather than the approving stamp of a denomination?
Could the Holy Spirit do a work in our midst that would do the same validating work as did the ancient apostolic succession?
I'd love to hear some perspectives on these questions.
What of itinerant ministry? More to come...
Technorati Tags: early church, church history, ministry, church, clement of rome, ordination
Comments
5 comments:
I understand apostolic succession; I was forced to study it. On the other hand, what I don't really understand is Episcopal ecclesiology. Monarchical/"singular" bishops on the basis of apostolic succession...am I off?
One of the many things that turned me away from apostolic to a more spiritual succession was something that I read from Irenaeus (sorry it's so lengthy):
"Therefore we ought to obey only those presbyters who are in the Church, who have their succession from the Apostles, as we have shown; who with their succession in the episcopate have received the sure gift of the truth according to the pleasure of the Father. The rest, who stand aloof from the primitive succession, and assemble in any place whatever, we must regard with suspicion, either as heretics and evil-minded; or as schismatics, puffed up and complacent; or again as hypocrites, acting thus for the sake of gain and vainglory. All these have fallen from the truth."
(Not sure what writing this came from. I've had it written down for a year or so, and remembered it when I read your post.)
I don't think "contemporary apostolic succession" IS valid or CAN BE valid. Not only is it illogical to me, but I have found no scriptural basis for it, either. I think the HS's presence in the life of a believer is itself a "validating work". What of tradition can biblically minimize the validity of a believer's ministry as apart of the Church? (I'll rearrange your "question" and make it a statement instead): Yes, we should serve in the community where our life is being formed. And I'd even go so far as to say: that should be the only necessary basis for our service and our love in that community (besides the obvious base of Scripture).
In regards to leaving one community for another...You and I both realize (I think) -- that you just know when your time is done. You know when/if the time comes for moving on. I'd like to expand, but this comment is already ridiculously long. And...itinerant ministry, well, I'll save that for another day.
Personally, I think the whole concept of Apostolic Sucession is a load of horse hockey. The way I see it, the only time the doctrine is ever trotted out is for negative purposes, i.e. to label someone else a heretic or schismatic.
The people that might possibly have a claim to it, and even then its pretty shaky historicity, is the Roman Catholic church. Assuming such a doctrine ever really existed in actuality, it seems to me they forfeited any claim to it with the corruption and scandal in the Middle Ages.
I personally think the doctrine cannot stand if one is a good Anglican who believes in the incarnation of Christ in the world. I mean, God can move through people regardless of whether they have a church that can legitimately claim "apostolic sucession"
Good thoughts, folks; thanks for commenting.
Annie, you make a good point about the expansive nature of the Spirit's gifts: is the Spirit polite enough to limit charisms to people in the mechanical succession just because we ask?
I do get uncomfortable talking about "faith" in this context, especially if we consider a "basic faith" to be itself a gift of God. (And what the heck would that mean, anyway?) On what basis does God make a person a bishop or presbyter, if indeed God does?
More to the point, I don't suggest "tossing it" out, but rather ask, "should those of us who don't have it, try to get it?"
Allison, are you implying that you reject apostolic succession because +Irenaeus was so adamant in its favor? ;0)
And no, I don't think any idea of the AS itself leads to a practice of singular episcopacy; I think they are unrelated.
I'll maintain that our boy Irenaeus had a good argument against Gnosticism in the AS, but to make it a primary doctrine of the Church...? Not convinced.
I agree with you, Ryan. What's mechanical apostolic pedagree worth when so many have purchased it with money? Remember what the Apostles said to Simon Magus... ;0)
Any problems with the (merely) relational validation of ministry?
I reject A.S., my dear Kyle, not because Irenaeus was so adamant in its favor...but because I think, overall, that its acceptance does more harm than good.
And, I think Irenaeus' quote is implicative of more than just the Gnosticism heresy...if that's what you were implying.
Not sure I understand your question there at the end, so I'll leave that one alone for now.
I don't mind - out of context indeed!
I think we're speaking of different things; my argument has nothing to do with the practice of ordination, or any "ritual" of any church. I speak of a particular teaching, and to employ the cliche, I'm not certain if there's a baby to be found in that bathwater.
Thanks for commenting!
Post a Comment