Theolog

What does it Mean for the Church to be ‘Apostolic’?

by Mark Bonnington, 18 Mar 2008

Part of the programme at Kings is regular and systematic expository preaching through Biblical books. But in the Autumn we took four weeks out and did a preaching series on the Church’s core values. It was a good exercise but I felt we could give only scant treatment to some important matters. One of the questions that arose in passing was the question of what we mean by the term ‘apostolic’. I mentioned it briefly, got some puzzled faces and a few questions afterwards but just didn’t get time to deal with it properly. There it was, staring at me in my notes, but it just didn’t make it off the page and into the sermon in the time available.

Traditionally, not least in the creeds, the word ‘apostolic’ has been regarded as one of the marks of the true Church (together with ‘one’, ‘holy’ and ‘catholic’). ‘Apostolic’ is the term that describes the authenticity of the Church in terms of its claim to continuity with the apostles. Exactly how then is any Church ‘apostolic’?

The Catholic view

On a ‘Catholic’ view the word means something very specific: the Church is ‘apostolic’ because it is in organisational continuity with the apostles. On this theory, after the first generation, the bishops of each locality replaced the apostles as those with authority in the Church. They had authority because they received the laying on of hands from the apostles. Later generations of bishops have been authorised by the laying on of hands of their predecessors, making a kind of chain of touching hands going back to the apostles. This theory is usually called ‘tactile’ succession because it identifies ‘apostolicity’ with the touching of the hands of one generation on the next. This is also the view of ‘catholic’ Churches including the Anglican Church. Only ministers ordained by the laying on hands by a bishop in the tactile apostolic succession are Anglican ministers. To be an Anglican is to accept this theory of authorisation of ministry: my bishop right or wrong. The Roman Catholic Church holds this view too, though they also give a special place to the Bishop of Rome, the Pope, who occupies Peter’s place and is the supreme representative of Christ on earth.

It is of course open to serious objections. One is historical: the first generation of Christians just didn’t work like this. Leadership in the early Churches was plural (elders), no singular (‘monarchial’). The Church at Rome was neither founded nor led by the apostle Peter (though he died there). In fact Paul’s letter to the Romans shows that even though Paul claimed jurisdiction over a gentile Church, he knew that he had not founded it and that it had existing leadership. The theory of tactile succession has been described as a stack of boxes with the bottom few missing. In other words, it rests on fresh air and little else.

But the bigger problems are theological. Whilst the catholic view is long on unity and continuity, it falls woefully short in its ability to guarantee truth. The tactile succession of bishops simply failed to guarantee the authenticity of the gospel preached in the Churches overseen by ‘apostolic’ bishops.

The Evangelical view

At the Reformation evangelical theology rediscovered apostolicity: to be apostolic the Church must preach the authentic message of the gospel. The Church is truly in continuity with the apostles when it preaches their message of free grace and the forgiveness of sins through the finished work of Christ. It is the true gospel not traditional bishops that make the authentic Church. For evangelical Christians this is the heart of any Church – it is the Church under the Word of God. Above every minister, every preacher, every leader and every bishop stands a higher authority – Scripture. Paul wonderfully foreshadows this doctrine when he writes so vehemently: ‘if I or an angel from heaven preach a different gospel, let them be anathema’ (Galatians 1.8). Here is a truly apostolic principle: authentic gospel makes authentic church and not vice versa. But the price of this high view of apostolic truth has usually been paid in the currency of the doctrine of the Church: a tendency to a low doctrine of the Church and its leadership, which lacks the valuing of continuity and unity evident in the Catholic view.

The Charismatic view

Some charismatics today urge a new language of apostolicity - it lies neither in apostolic bishops nor solely in apostolic truth but in a form of ministry. A ‘charismatic’ apostle is someone who exercises an apostolic ministry – preaching the gospel, planting Churches and teaching the faith. Although there is no claim that such apostles have the same authority as the 12 or Paul, the NT apostles are the model for contemporary missionary ministry – though the details of qualifications for ministry vary. Such a designation is not entirely new: outside Durham cathedral the largest memorial is to the late nineteenth century Anglican Bishop Albert Tucker who went from being curate of St Nic’s in Durham to be a missionary bishop and ‘apostle of Uganda’ (according to his epitaph). According to Robert Wagner (Churchquake: the New Apostolic Reformation) this is the shape of the Church to come: the emergence of new groupings under the leadership of ‘apostles’ – pioneering leaders who are the founders of new mini-denominations.

Like the Catholic view of authority, charismatic ‘apostleship’ identifies the authenticity of the Church with authoritative leaders. And so it shares the same kind of weakness: allowing the emergence of authoritative preachers of false gospels, like those whose health, wealth and prosperity message is very far from the authentic message of the NT. But unlike the catholic view it holds up a missionary, pioneering form of ministry as central to the authenticity of the Church. Such ministry is vital to the Church in a post-Christendom age. The origin of this authentic ministry is not found in inherited ecclesiastical structures, but rather in the gifts and call of God to new leaders in every generation. These are the marks of an authentic Church and its leadership. No wonder I’m an evangelical and a charismatic.