apostolic succession?

9 Comments

1. Patrick Oden — August 21, 2008 #

   It shows a clear priority of ecclesiology over other doctrines. If Scripture is in the possession of the Church, then the Church determines everything. Not the Church, however, that’s a misnomer. The hierarchy of the Church. Thus, those in charge choose who will be in charge. Which is okay when there truly was Apostolic succession, when the Apostles chose their successors. John, for instance, was the mentor of Ignatius and Polycarp among others. Irenaeus was living in the 2nd century.

   However, sin being what it is, if Apostolic succession in the church is all there is then we cannot really escape the ‘telephone game’ dangers.

   Except for the presence of the Holy Spirit. And if we have the Holy Spirit to affirm succession, we also have the Holy Spirit being the Holy Spirit in every other way Scripture tells us, which leaves absolutely no room for ecclesiology to take priority.

   What is a Bishop compared to the very Spirit of God?

   Which is part of the Trinity? Who passed on Scriptures? The Spirit. That is why we have confidence in it and trust. So, let’s just all have a groovy pneumatology and live life as God intended.

2. Carlos — August 21, 2008 #

   Mak, sorry to be a nuisance, but Sola Scritura is incomplete; God wrote two books: Special revelation of Scriptures and General revelation in the Book of Nature; to interpret Psalm 19:1-4 you need to read the comentary written by Brian Greene - The Fabric of the Cosmos; he is a professor at Columbia University and an Agnostic, but he translates the language expressed in thes passages beautifully, while also clarifying Hebrews 11:3 with his super string theory; check it out…

3. Mak — August 21, 2008 #

   see patrick, that’s where I feel so conflicted - I agree with you about the Spirit but, let’s use this as an example, Mark Driscoll and myself both believe our views of women’s role in the church are Spirit-breathed - can we both be right? and can either be right when it causes so much division? Obviously, I’m protestant so it’s clear when I ultimately land on this in a practical sense but it does bring some frustration for me.

   I need to just let stuff go and live my life but I find that very hard to do.

4. Patrick Oden — August 22, 2008 #

   Mak, I think that’s the tension that creates all these problems to begin with. We want certainty, but God doesn’t give it.

   No, you’re not both right. Either you or Mark Driscoll are wrong. Which one? Well, that’s the frustration that, I think, we are left to deal with not as a breakdown in our theology but as a test of our spiritual maturity.

   I was writing a little bit ago on the story of the golden calf. There the Israelites got impatient and told Aaron to make a god they could see, touch, worship. A god that was a lot like all the gods they used to know. In their uncertainty they tried to make certainty.

   Only they were wrong.

   And a lot of theology is that same thing. In our uncertainty that God leaves us with we try to make all kinds of rules and systems to bring us a sense of comfort. God leaves us to wrestle with his reality and demands that we love along the way. That’s why, I think, the New Testament isn’t a book of laws, but just situational stories and core values.

   It is very hard to do, to let go. But that’s where spiritual maturity is found.

   And that’s something that’s not at all more found in famous writers/pastors, often just the opposite in fact.

   Also, with your example, I think its not a matter of just having a right answer. In theology, along God’s path of it, it’s also a matter of having the right path and reasons. The women in ministry thing is interesting to me because I think, historically, there have been a lot of wrong reasons that do conflict with other aspects. But, finding the reasons in pneumatology, in the work of the Spirit brings a fullness of participation that reflects in broad ways. Meaning, just having a woman as a priest isn’t right, because a woman priest can lord just as any other man can in a wrongly established position (such as the figure head of a mega-church, for instance). But having women participate fully because the Spirit works fully, Christ is our only head, and this means broad participation in all directions undermines both gender and ecclesial power issues. Which, of course, undermines our good friends who like their gender and ecclesial power structures.

   So, who is right? Watch out for the people protecting their own turf, I suppose.

5. Mak — August 22, 2008 #

   Everything you’re saying is certainly good Patrick, and by saying what I’m about to say I do not intend to diminish it or disagree with it at all….but I know all that, and it still doesn’t resolve anything in my own spirituality or my own soul for that matter.

   This isn’t something in me that’s going to be answered any time soon, if ever

   Thanks for processing with me Patrick

6. Tia Lynn — August 22, 2008 #

   As much as I love the Bible, believe it contains words of God, and am thankful for its existence, I must say that I also believe it’s use has become a form of idolatry in the church. When Jesus ascended into heaven, he didn’t say “I will send you a book that will explain everything for you and generation after generation of infallible men to interpret it for you…” Instead, he said He would send His Spirit to guide us (individually and corporately) and write His Word in our hearts, not in tablets of stone. The former would be easier. It would be black and white, clean cut, certain, a permanent checklist we could refer to do assess everyone’s orthodoxy, spirituality, and validity. Everything would be defined and known and spoon-fed to every believer for all time. But where would our faith be? Shallow, untested, and probably dead. The greyness that comes along with faith causes us to wrestle with God, and seek Him out. It’s not the kind of faith for the idly curious. It’s much scarier to seek the untame Spirit to guide us instead of finding every answer in a list of doctrines or the words of dead apostles and church fathers. It takes us out of the driver’s seat, makes us relinquish control. It forces us to put down our gavals and realize that the Spirit is like the wind, going to and fro throughout the earth, and who are we box God’s spirit in? It’s the uncertainty that forces us to have grace for those with whom we disagree, to keep seeking after and wrestling with God, and to ultimately allow the Spirit to take us to the unexpected and peculiar places that the “orthodoxy” of “apostolic successions,” frown upon. I think we can learn from early church fathers and “apostolic successions,” but ultimately the Spirit has to be our teacher. We should look at church fathers (and mothers) as family who we respect and can learn from, but not has the final authority on scripture and all matters of faith.

7. Paul — August 23, 2008 #

   heh when you’re on a roll you’re on a roll

   2 things strike me…

   1… when Iraneus was around there were folks who could say my grandfather knew (or was!) an apostle, so somehow that had to be sorted out, it made more sense to try and control that authority - without comms chanels of today it made sense to limit to protect people by having clearly defined sucession.

   2… scripture was still in process of being defined/recognised - who was a credible source who was just blagging it? The phrase it seems good to us and the holy spirit was used at the counsel of jerusalem and Constantinople i.e. as scripture and doctrine are being definded under the inspiration of the holy spirit created through the church.

   2000+ yrs later we can all i guess claim some sort of apostolic succession in the loose sense of tracing the chain of faith back to that upper room but no one i doubt can make a historical arguement for unbroken sucession and actually probably doesn’t need to anymore. It is clear that the church is still the custodian of the scripture and the ongoing inspiration of the holy spirit and therefore scriputure and interpretation by all us popes must be 2 checks and balances to stop us all spinning out into real doctrinal heresy.

8. Carlos — August 23, 2008 #

   Patrick,

   There is and additional choice to your ” either Mak or Mark is wrong” and that is that both could be wrong; this I believe is more in line with your statement about uncertainty, or in scientific terms, the Eizenbergh principle, which simply put, says that no matter how well you know something, you do not know it 100% accurately (my paraphrase). I like it better how Hugh Ross stated, where “no matter how well developed your interpretation of Scripture you have, it is neve perfec and always in need of fine tunning as new facts are uncovered”. It is only in math where one can absolutely prove something…

   This is the beauty of that proverb, ” as iron sharpens iron, so should we be with one another”… there is a lot of work being done in the last few years that is essentially shattering a lot of what we considered non-negotiable truths, and some of them were pretty silly; there are too many to list them….

   Peace…

9. Heather — September 5, 2008 #

   Lively discussion! Thanks for the brain food. I think Tia Lynn’s summation is really articulate, and I would have to agree with her on the point of the Bible being a form of idolatry.