Walking in the Footsteps of the Apostles

By Robin G. Jordan

“And Jesus called them to him, and saith unto them, ‘Ye know that they who are accounted to rule over the Gentiles lord it over them; and their great ones exercise authority over them. But it is not so among you: but whosoever would become great among you, shall be your minister; and whosoever would be first among you, shall be servant of all. For the Son of man also came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many.’” Mark 10:42-45 American Standard Version

“Tend the flock of God which is among you, exercising the oversight, not of constraint, but willingly, according to the will of God; nor yet for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind; neither as lording it over the charge allotted to you, but making yourselves ensamples to the flock.” 1 Peter 5:2-3 American Standard Version

Among the reasons that Catholics hang onto the notion of apostolic succession as a succession of bishops stretching back uninterrupted to the apostles is that it can be used to support their doctrinal and theological views. They also believe that what makes the sacraments work is passed from one bishop to the next in this supposedly unbroken line of bishops and from the bishop to the priest. Indeed the possession of apostolic succession is, in their way of thinking, what distinguishes a true church in which, in the words of the late Peter Toon, “there are real and true, valid and efficacious means of grace, sacraments, and salvation.” Churches that do not possess the apostolic succession are not true churches. They are at best lay religious societies and their clergy, laymen. Such thinking enables Catholics to feel that their church is special. It enables Roman Catholics to make the preposterous claim that their church is the universal church.

Other reasons include the very human desires for power, position, prestige, privilege, and status.

The New Testament tells us that Christ commissioned the twelve apostles to be his witnesses and envoys. This commission extends to His Church in every place and time. The twelve apostles stood for the Church when Christ gave the commission. Christ did not appoint them rulers of the Church. The commission that He gave them and which He also gave to the whole Church is to go into world and proclaim the gospel to all creation. The successors to the apostles are those fulfilling this commission—serving as witnesses to Christ and sharing the good news with people of all ages, in all walks of life.

The apostles certainly were not the precursors of the managerial class that bishops have become in the Anglican and Episcopal Churches in North America. They did not have offices, smart phones, laptop computers, and secretaries. They did not have particular dress or ornaments that set them apart from the rest of the Church. Some may have started churches; others strengthened the existing churches that they found in their travels. Wherever they went, they were Christ’s witnesses. They modeled this ministry for the entire Church. Those who do what the apostles did may freely claim to be their successors—lay people as well as clergy.

The post-apostolic office of bishop evolved from the New Testament office of elder-overseer. Roger T. Beckwith explores the emergence of the episcopal office in Elders in Every City: the Origin and Role of the Ordained Ministry. While the New Testament records that Paul appointed elders, it is silent as to whether the original twelve apostles appointed anyone. The people selected the nine “deacons” in the Acts of the Apostles and the apostles laid hands on them and prayed over them. The New Testament certainly does not support the fanciful theory that the apostles appointed a line of bishops to serve as their successors.

Prelacy—what North American Anglicans and Episcopalians confuse with episcopacy—is a post-Constantine development. The feudal bishop of the Medieval Catholic Church has for a large part shaped their understanding of the role of the bishop in the Church.

In the property disputes between disaffected Episcopalians and the Episcopal Church the latter has exploited the Catholic theory of apostolic succession to bolster its claim that the Episcopal Church is hierarchical and the diocese holds in trust and has legal claim to property bought and paid for by departing parishes. The parish is, it is argued, is a creature of the diocese rather than the diocese a creature of a voluntary association of parishes. As Tim Smith and others have shown, the diocese and the national church as creatures of a voluntary association of parishes is the basis upon which the Episcopal Church was founded. In the nineteenth century the Anglo-Catholic movement in the Episcopal Church would promote the idea that the diocese owes its existence to the bishop of the diocese as a successor to the apostles and the parish is a creature of the diocese. This idea would gain acceptance to the point that the real basis of the Episcopal Church was forgotten. We see the consequences of its acceptance played out today.

The New Testament does not recognize such parachurch organizations as dioceses, provinces, and national churches as the Church. The New Testament recognizes as the Church the visible Church—the local congregation—and the invisible Church—the redeemed in every time and place. One or two passages appear to lean toward recognition of the congregations in a particular region as the Church but the New Testament does not develop the concept of networks of such congregations as the Church. Congregations, however, are urged to help each other. On this basis voluntary associations of churches are arguably consonant with Scripture.

The New Testament does not prescribe a particular structure for the church or a particular form of church government. The English Reformers found no Scriptural warrant for episcopacy or presbyterianism. They retained bishops because the Scriptures did not prohibit them. The episcopal office had a history going back to post-apostolic times.

The seventeenth century Laudians would champion the theory of the divine right of bishops. At the same time they did not unchurch the Continental Reformed Churches because they lacked bishops. They recognized the validity of their orders and their sacraments.

The Anglo-Catholic movement in the Episcopal Church in the nineteenth century would not only champion the divine rights of bishops but also unchurched evangelical churches in and outside the United States that lacked the episcopate. They promoted legislation that prohibited Episcopal bishops and other clergy from fellowshipping with the clergy of non-episcopal churches. They vigorously prosecuted clergy who did fellowship with them. In 1886 the Episcopal House of Bishops, dominated by Anglo-Catholic bishops, would adopt the Chicago Quadrilateral asserting that bishops were of the essence of the Church. In doing so, the Episcopal House of Bishops outlawed the widely held Anglican view that while bishops may be necessary to the well being of the church, they are not essential to its existence. They unchurched millions of Baptists, Methodists, and Presbyterians.

This hyper-Catholic view of the episcopate survives in the North American Anglican Church to this day. It is expressed in the fundamental declarations of the Anglican Church in North America as well as the earlier Affirmation of St. Louis of the Continuing Anglican movement. It was adopted by the Anglican Church of Rwanda in its new canons, the work of an Episcopal turned AMiA priest, a former Roman Catholic. The Anglican Mission in the Americas is a missionary jurisdiction of the Anglican Church of Rwanda.

From what I gather the Rwandans themselves were not aware that the new canons made sweeping changes in the official doctrines of their church, as well as establishing a prelatical form of ecclesiastical governance modeled upon that of the Roman Catholic Church. They were misled into believing that the new canons were necessary for the effective operation of the AMiA in the Americas. They have only recently begun to realize how radical are the doctrinal changes that the new canons introduced. If what I gather is accurate, we have in the case of the new Rwandan canons an attempt by a member of the Catholic party in the AMiA to undermine the classical Anglican position in an African province.

In the Anglican Church in North America the Catholics are once more championing the theory of the divine right of bishops. They object to the clear definition and limitation of episcopal authority. They insist that bishops should be given free rein to rule the church

Catholic leaders in the ACNA are ignoring the provisions of the constitution and canons of the ACNA. While the constitution and canons of the ACNA make provision for a Provincial Council and an Executive Committee, the Archbishop’s Cabinet, a group of bishops assembled by Archbishop Duncan, is actually making major policy decisions. Archbishop Duncan has created offices such as Dean of the Province to which he has made appointments even though he has no authority to create offices and to make appointments to them under the provisions of the ACNA governing documents.

The College of Bishops is also usurping the role of the Provincial Council and the Provincial Assembly. It recently approved a new ordinal for the ACNA, which under the provisions of the ACNA canons requires Provincial Council approval in the form of a canon, which in turn must be submitted to the Provincial Assembly for ratification.

These developments are attributable to the influence of Catholic thinking in the ACNA.

In the Anglican Mission in the Americas all authority is derived from the Primate of Rwanda through his Primatial Vicar under the provisions of the new Rwandan canons. Authority is delegated by the Primatial Vicar to the jurisdiction’s Missionary Bishops who in turn delegate authority to those under them. The form of ecclesiastical governance of the jurisdiction is modeled upon that of the Roman Catholic Church. The new Rwandan canons are heavily indebted to the Roman Catholic Church’s Code of Canon Law. The laity has no role in the governance of the AMiA and the clergy have only a consultative role.

The ACNA canons also reflect the influence of the Roman Catholic Church’s Code of Canon Law in doctrine, norms and principles as well as language.

Both the ACNA and the AMiA appear to be in denial over the role that bishops played in the departure of the Anglican Church of Canada and the Episcopal Church from traditional beliefs and morality. They refuse to admit the need for synods of godly clergy and laity to ensure the conformance of bishops to Scriptural teaching and to serve as a check to the tyranny and folly of bishops. They fail to see the full implications of the biblical truth that God gives His Holy Spirit to all believers, not to one class of believers. The government of the Christian community belongs under God to the Church as whole—to the clergy and laity together, not exclusively to bishops or to any single class of persons in the Church.

The parish, or local congregation, from the viewpoint of the New Testament is the basic unit of the Church. The local gathering of believing Christians in which the pure word of God and the sacraments of Baptism and the Lord’s Supper duly administered is the visible Church of Christ. It is the Word and the Holy Spirit that brings unbelievers to faith and in turn forms them into the Body of Christ. It is through the Word and the Holy Spirit that Christ rules His Church.

The authority that the bishop of a judicatory exercises is delegated by the congregations forming the judicatory and is derived from Christ through them. The congregations banded together for common mission call a bishop to oversee them. They voluntarily place themselves under his spiritual leadership.

Bishops exercise two kinds of authority—the formal authority of the episcopal office and the moral and spiritual authority of a faithful servant of Christ. The formal authority of the episcopal office is delegated. It is defined and limited by Scripture, canon, rubric, and civil law. The moral and spiritual authority of a faithful servant of Christ comes from his relationship with Christ and his relationship with the flock God has entrusted to his care. His relationship with Christ is reflected in his relationship with his flock. He leads by example and through his teaching. He is above all else a shepherd, a pastor, and his shepherd’s crook is the Bible that he was given at his consecration.

Judicatories and denominations are organized to help local congregations to fulfill the ministries that God has given them. The role of the judicatory and the denomination is to serve the local congregation so the local congregation can better serve Christ.

When these biblical principles are recognized and applied, the whole Church is released to walk in the footsteps of the apostles. The cause of the gospel is advanced.

Recognition of the voluntary nature of the ACNA and the AMiA is an essential safeguard against what happened in the Anglican Church of Canada and the Episcopal Church. Both parachurch organizations need to amend their governing documents to acknowledge the voluntary nature of their existence and to give the clergy and the laity a greater role in their governance. Both need to clearly define the authority of their bishops and to set appropriate limits upon that authority. They also need to take the necessary steps to enforce those limits, holding their bishops fully accountable for what they do. Without any accountability mechanisms in place both the ACNA and the AMiA are highly vulnerable to the abuse of power, the misappropriation of funds, the concealment of endemic wrongdoing, and other evils of prelatical episcopacy.