A minor

Using a paragraph from Doug Wilson's "Reformed" is Not Enough (Canon Press, 2002) as his launching point, Tim Gallant posts on apostolic succession and two opposing views of the esse of the church. He writes:

The true view is that the Church is tied to baptism - no baptism, no church. And of course, the well-being of the Church is tied to office-bearers. But those office-bearers are appointed out of the midst of a "nation of priests," and therefore are not constitutive of the Church.

Wilson and Gallant's points about baptismal succession are immensely helpful in defining the esse of the church, but they do not address the unique functions of apostolic and episcopal offices in the mission of the church. I agree with them that the church is not constituted, first and foremost, by her officers. However, for the sake of shepherding and orderliness - for the bene esse or well-being of the church - the body of Christ has been blessed with officers. And so the following questions, among others, are important to consider: Are apostolic and episcopal offices still exercised in our day, and if so, how? Also, if so, how should such officers be recognized, commissioned, ordained, appointed, or consecrated - and by whom? What kinds of men are suited for such offices? Etc.

With all this in mind, it occurs to me that the episcopate has always been associated with the apostolic function and commission. Even today in episcopal polity, a bishop's apostolic succession (which resembles a genealogy that can be traced, purportedly, all the way back to the early church) is taken very seriously. Now, I do not believe such episcopal "genealogy" is necessary, as history proves. Take, for example, men beginning with the Apostle Paul to contemporary "pastors of pastors" like Doug Wilson or my wife's grandfather, Francis Martin - men who clearly serve(d) an episcopal function, but who were not consecrated by some presiding bishop (or in Paul's case, by Jesus Himself while He was on earth).

Moreover, John Kelly's "The Role of Apostle in the Transformation of Churches" develops the geographical-orientation of apostles. Under the sub-heading, "Apostles Unify a Region," he writes:

Apostolic pastors will sense a call to a city or region to pastor and reach it. They will pastor their local church, but they will also sense a responsibility to pastor and have an apostolic vision to reach and influence their city.

God has called us to carry out the Great Commission: to "make disciples of all nations." This calls for an overall plan; it is a huge undertaking. This cannot be accomplished without the apostle serving the churches and ministries so a unified force can be mobilized against everything which exalts itself against Jesus Christ. And it is through relationships that this is accomplished, not through a denominational structure or democratic polity. A denominational church or a democratically run church can have an apostolic vision to win their city, but it will take all the local churches working together to win that city; one church cannot do it alone.

The term "apostolic succession" is thus defined in a few distinct ways. First, there is episcopal "genealogy," which often assumes that the esse of the church resides in her officers.

Second, there is the view that the precursor to the office of the modern-day pastor/elder is the apostolic office of the early church. This was the view I most heard growing up in a Southern Presbyterian church; only later did I learn the first and more common meaning of apostolic succession.

In contrast to both of the above views, there is the third position articulated by Gallant and Wilson (who builds on Peter Leithart's "Womb of the World: Baptism and Priesthood of the New Covenant in Hebrews 10:19-22," Journal for the Study of the New Testament 78 [June 2000]): Apostolic succession is passed down through baptism, not ordination. I certainly agree that this is true of the New Covenant priesthood. The church is primarily the community of the baptized, not of the ordained. However, not all New Covenant priests are apostles, so I think it might be confusing to co-opt the term "apostolic succession" in this way.

Finally, there is the view that interweaves aspects of each of the above positions. This view maintains that, in the tradition of the early church apostles, some men are still called to be citywide or regional pastors. Considering the language of Scripture (episkopos) as well as continuity with church history, there is no problem with designating such men "bishops," regardless of whether they are consecrated by a presiding bishop who stands in a flawless line of episcopal "genealogy." It should also be clearly stated that there is no obligation to use the designation "bishop." This is a matter of wisdom, and factors such as the local community's preference and tradition should be considered.

When we begin to think in terms of multi-congregation city churches (a.k.a. presbyteries, classes, or dioceses), the idea of apostolic succession takes on a whole new dimension. I believe it is this sense of apostolic succession that needs more attention in the contemporary mission of the church.