The following is a discourse I had with a friend on Facebook. He calls himself the "Abnormal Anabaptist" and he is a good man of sound and profound faith. His concerns with the Orthodox and Catholic teaching on Apostolic Succession is illustrative, I think, of the misconception some of our Protestant brethren have regarding this doctrine. I hope perhaps it will be helpful to others who may have similar concerns.
I guess I see "Apostolic Succession" as the doctrine that gives men positions of authority because they are in some way connected directly to men of the past. If that's the case, all believers who study the Scriptures fall under Apostolic Succession because, to some degree, they have all received teaching handed down from the apostles to their followers. I see this as distinct, if only by certain nuances, to the discernment used to determine what is canon and what is not. The difference is that it was followers of Jesus trying to discern what were the important texts to hand down in order to test and hold men accountable. Apostolic Succession is where the men themselves are the standard to which men are held accountable and I see that as a bit of a problem.I know the differences are subtle and that the authority of the men who determined the canon comes from some sense of the succession...but now that we do have the canon as the standard, those men who come after should then submit to that authority imparted to the canon because of that purpose. [ ]
.... I do not feel that there is an inherently hierarchical nature to the intended structure of the church. Yes, some men and women are wiser, more learned, but I don't think necessarily they should be placed in a position where they cannot be called to account for deviations from the standard that the church as community agreed upon. So if a pastor or elder or overseer strays from that standard, the lowliest believer who recognizes it can call them to account...not for pride, but for the good of the whole body. As I have seen Apostolic Succession invoked by some (perhaps not here), this does not seem to happen...the priest, pope, father, is unquestioned...their word is considered on par with the truth of the canon...and that I don't feel is right.
This is not what Apostolic Succession is; that is not it's purpose or function. Christ said that all authority was His and He transmitted that authority to His apostles in a direct way when He breathed on them and said, "Receive the Holy Spirit; that which you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, that which you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven ... " and, "... those whose sins you forgive they will be forgiven, those whose sins you retain will be retained." (I'm not going to give citations here because I know you know the Bible well enough to know where all these are.) He gave them His own authority, the power of forgiving sins and binding and loosing and commissioned them and sent them out to "make disciples of all nations" and to baptize. They received the fullness of empowerment at Pentecost. What they received they transmitted to their successors. It had to be transmitted because the "gifts of God are irrevocable" and His word "does not return to Him empty but accomplishes the purpose for which it was sent". All of this was set in place not to give men positions of authority but to ensure that the sacred deposit of Faith in its fullness would be carried on and safeguarded, which resulted in the setting of the Canon and the Creed and would continue beyond and alongside these.
Apostolic Succession does not make some men the standard to which others are held accountable; it makes those upon whom it is bestowed accountable to the Good Shepherd and to His sheep, because He told them, "Feed my sheep", and because "to those whom much has been given, much will be expected". This is a heavy burden, one not to be coveted. I know because it has been given to me and it will be expected of me. There is far more to Apostolic Succession than a believer studying the Scriptures and receiving teaching from them. Deacons and Priests (and other types of ministers) are *ordained*; Bishops are *consecrated* and there is a reason for this distinction. There is a mystical and transcendental connection that comes from the essential element involved in the Sacrament of Holy Orders, that being, the Laying-on-of-Hands. This is distinctly different than the general notion of laying-on-of-hands in that one can only confer/transmit that which one already possesses. In the sense of the "priesthood of all believers" all Christians can lay hands for the purpose of healing and a number of other things. The Bishop is consecrated by the laying-on-of-hands by three other bishops for the distinct purpose of conferring/transmitting Apostolic Succession and the authority of Christ. The laying-on-of-hands in this sense evolved from the Jewish practice of the father bestowing the hierarchical blessing on his firstborn and heir (as in Isaac and Jacob, Jacob and Ephraim / Manassah, etc).
... that I do not feel that there is an inherently hierarchical nature to the intended structure of the church.
Honestly, I don't know how anyone that studies the Scriptures can miss it. The implication is everywhere, in both Testaments. In the OT God said of Himself that He was king over His people. He called Prophets to prophesy and Judges to judge. Then the people wanted a king to rule over them so He gave them one which led to the Davidic Dynasty from which Christ descended. In Jewish temple worship there was a hierarchy of ministers, at the top of which was the High Priest descended from Aaron. It's obvious that Christ throughout His ministry recognized this hierarchy even though He Himself was not subject to it. He told the leper to "go and show yourself to the priest" and again, “The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. So you must obey them and do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach." In the Book of Acts, where we see the very beginnings of the Church, we see the foundation of hierarchical structure when the Apostles appointed subordinates - the seven Deacons (deacon from diakonos meaning "one who serves") - so that they could concentrate on the primary mission of preaching the Gospel. In fact, all four "orders" which form the government of the Church - laity, deacons, presbyters and bishops - are clearly visible in St. Paul's first letter to Timothy. The laity are also called "saints", the "faithful" and "brethren". Presbyters or "elders" are visible, their ministry from the start being to "rule", "labor in the world", and teach true "doctrine". St. Paul appointed elders in every local church and later instructed his apostolic apprentice, Titus, to do the same.
(In no way is the ordained Christian priesthood seen as a throwback to or a reenacting of the OT priesthood. Rather, joined to Christ Who is our High Priest "according to the order of Melchizedek", Orthodox and Catholic priests are likewise ministers of a new covenant that supersedes the old.)
The bishop is the "overseer" of the congregation and clergy in a given area. (Often the terms "bishop" and "elder" are used interchangeably in the NT with the bishop being the leader of the elders.) Nonetheless the bishopric is a specific office both in the NT and in the early Church. The Twelve were the first to hold this office (in Acts 1:20 "office" could literally be translated as "bishopric"). Early records show James was the bishop of Jerusalem by AD 49 and functioned accordingly at the first council there (Acts 15). Peter is on record as the first bishop of Antioch prior to AD 53 and later first bishop of Rome where he was martyred about AD 65. Perhaps the strongest early reference outside the NT to the presence of the four orders in church government occurs in the writings of Ignatius, bishop of Antioch from AD 67 to 107, the very heart of the New Testament era. To the church at Philadelphia he writes of "Christians [laity] at one with the bishop and the presbyters and the deacons". In another letter he writes: "Let everyone revere the deacons as Jesus Christ, the bishop as the image (literally "icon") of the Father and the priests as the senate of God for without them one cannot speak of the Church".
In Orthodoxy spiritual authority is present in all four orders, with the bishop providing the center of unity. His authority is not over the church but within the church. He is an icon of Jesus Christ, "the Shepherd and Overseer [bishop] of your souls" (1Pet.2). Church leadership does not consist of one or more of the orders functioning without the others. Rather, the Church, with Christ as Head, is structured and conducted like a family, the Body of Christ, where all the members in their given offices work together as the dwelling place of the Holy Trinity.
Now, the sad thing is that, over time, as *the* Church evolved, some jurisdictions (even I daresay Orthodox ones) have become more "institutional". Bishops have become more administrators than shepherds and arch-pastors, priests more academics than laborers and the diaconate has come to be regarded as little more than a "stepping-stone" to the priesthood. Also the laity, in some cases, have either come to exercise too much control over the clergy or they have become more "sheeple" than sheep. All of this represents imbalance in the church which leads to disorder, disunity, scandal, heresy, schism and all the rest. This is partly why our Religious Community is only "affiliated" with that institution called the Anglican Communion. As a bishop I am of course accountable to Christ and to the people whom He has entrusted to me but I also must be accountable to a group of bishops that even the "lowliest believer" can appeal to in the event (God forbid!) I go astray. But that is as far as my institutionalism goes. I believe that the balance within the family of God and the Body of Christ is best achieved and maintained in the small Eucharistic Community. This is not to say that I deny "The Church" - the Church is real and it is really present in the world; it is mystical but not invisible. But I also believe there is such a thing as the Church of the Heart, and in such a sense we are all really One.
+ + +
