Introduction
The works of Robert Barron, Fulton J. Sheen, and Mother Angelica at times tempt me to cross the Tiber. Chad Bird and the good folks over at 1517.org make compelling arguments for Lutheranism. The many solid theologians and thinkers of the ACNA have me longing for a tradition that is all at once liturgical, charismatic, and historical. The Book of Common Prayer has become a go-to resource for me as I plan the liturgy for my flock at Mars Hill Cumberland Presbyterian Church on Sunday mornings.
However, all of these movements have something in common: ecclesiological snobbery. The old “My church is better than yours” syndrome. Even at the 1517 Conference I attended in Bentonville, Arkansas a couple of years ago there was a certain pride among Lutherans just for the fact that they were Lutheran, just as there was a certain pride among the Presbyterians (PCA) who were in attendance simply because they were Presbyterian. Although both parties appeared to worship amicably and agree on the concepts of free grace and beer, there was not a true sense of unity. The only thing preventing a potential drunken fistfight was a conversation about the Lord's Supper and the relationship between salvation and baptism.
There is ecclesiological snobbery afoot, and I refuse to have anything to do with it. Even among my own ranks in the Cumberland Presbyterian Church, my ordination is not recognized by my presbytery and therefore, I am unable to administer the sacraments of baptism and the Lord’s Supper. Now, why is that? Is my ordination invalid? That’s a question for Pastor Bill Hampton and Pleasant Grove Community Church.
I can tell you about the process that I underwent. My life was examined for nine months in light of the qualifications listed in Titus 1 and 1 Timothy 3 (both the pastor and the congregation have known me and my calling into the ministry for longer than that). After a period of time, the church voted to ordain me as a minister. At the ordination service, the elders of the church as well as my pastor and other pastors of local congregations were present to lay hands on me.
The church did not ask to see my resume because my manner of life was my resume. The church did not ask about my formal theological education because the several times I had preached in that congregation revealed that I was fairly educated. I expressed that I felt the call to ministry and they, in turn, affirmed that call based on whether or not I sought to live as pastors and elders were instructed to live in Titus 1 and 1 Timothy 3.
This simple mode of ordaining a minister is looked down upon by many in the Lutheran, Presbyterian, Methodist, and Anglican circles, but honestly, there is no shortage of pastors who have ordained in this fashion, but there is a shortage of pastors in denominations that require a high amount of formal theological training from accredited institutions. With many empty pulpits and pastors stretching themselves between 2 or 3 congregations, it seems many of these denominations would rather die than make ordination more accessible.
All of these thoughts and more began running through my mind when I saw that my good friend, Cory Allen Byrum, had published an article sharing his thoughts on Apostolic Succession.
What I want to do is respond to certain parts of this article, and make an argument for why I, personally, see no need to submit myself to a guy in a funny hat.
Point by Point
Point #1: Okay, But Who is “the Church?”
Saint Jude begins his epistle with the sobering admonition to contend for the faith… Saint Jude tells us not only that this faith exists, and has been handed to us, but also to whom it has been handed to, and where we can find it. “… Contend for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints.” Here we begin to see the subject of this essay taking its form. The Christian faith was delivered to the Church (and more aptly, the Apostles and their successors). This means that the Church possesses some authority regarding matters of faith.1
Okay, fair enough, but who qualifies as “the Church”? If we go back to Acts 6:1-6, we’ll see that seemingly the whole Church was involved in selecting the members of the first diaconate. If we do a study of what qualifies someone to be a deacon in 1 Timothy 3:8-13, then we’ll quickly find that the roles and responsibilities of a deacon were similar to that of a bishop in 1 Timothy 3:1-7. It’s no wonder that the Apostle Paul mentions them almost in the same breath.
With bishops and deacons having similar moral qualifications, it’s not a stretch to assume that bishops would be selected the same way deacons were - by the Church. As a matter of fact, Hippolytus says that this is precisely how it was done.
Let the bishop be ordained being in all things without fault chosen by all the people. And when he has been proposed and found acceptable to all, the people being assembled on the Lord's Day together with the presbytery and such bishops as may attend, let the choice be generally approved;2
Going back further than Hippolytus, the Didache instructs the Church to “appoint for yourselves bishops and deacons worthy of the Lord, men meek, and not lovers of money, 1 Timothy 3:4 and truthful and proven; for they also render to you the service of prophets and teachers. Despise them not therefore, for they are your honoured ones, together with the prophets and teachers.3”
So, let’s establish that bishops are selected by the Church, as a whole. To eliminate any other confusion let’s also establish that the terms “bishop,” “pastor,” “elder,” and “overseer” are all interchangeable throughout the New Testament.4
Point 2: Does The Text Really Say That?
First, we must understand what exactly Apostolic Succession is, and what it is concerned about. Apostolic Succession speaks to the succession of episcopal authority given through the ordination of Bishops that is able to trace back to the Apostles themselves. The reason this is important is that in matters of controversy, it is important for the faithful to discern the voice of their Shepherd against those false ones that Saint Jude warned us about earlier. “My sheep hear my voice…and they follow me.” - St. John 10:27.5
Cory seems to be equivocating the voice of Jesus the True Shepherd with the voice of Bishops who can trace their lineage back to Christ on the basis of Apostolic Succession. Both the pope and the Archbishop of Canterbury can claim Apostolic Succession, and they’re both heretics. One claims to be the vicar of Christ, and the other openly blesses same-sex couples. (I’ll let you guess which one is which.) So, it seems that Apostolic Succession doesn’t protect the purity of your church’s doctrine. Well, if Apostolic Succession doesn’t, then what does? It would seem that local church elders do. Notice, in Acts 20, how the Apostle Paul exhorts the elders who are at Ephesus.
For I know this, that after my departure savage wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock. 20 Also from among yourselves men will rise up, speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after themselves.
- Acts 20:19-20, NKJV
Another thing I would point out is that Cory implements John 10:27 as part of his argument without taking into consideration the historical context. Surely, Cory knows better than to suggest that Jesus, in John 10, is exhorting his disciples against following good ol’ Baptist Brother Bob who doesn’t have a paper trail back to the Apostles.
The historical context of John 10 has to do with Jesus’ warnings against the power of the Empire. Brian Zahnd (whom I’m not comfortable recommending on a regular basis) actually does a good job of contextualizing John 10 in a recent sermon titled “When Do We Live?” Zahnd speaks of false Messiahs who came throughout history to steal, kill, and destroy.
Judas of Galilee (“Came to Steal”)
Leader of the Zealots
Referred to in Acts 5:37
Led a tax revolt in Sepphoris in 6 A.D.
Stole from those who paid taxes to Caesar
Anthrogenes the Shepherd (“Came to Kill”)
In 4 A.D. he became a revolutionary that crowned himself the King of the Jews
Attacked a Roman company of soldiers at Emmaus and killed them all.
Simon of Peraea (“Came to Destroy”)
Escaped slave of King Herod the Great
In 4 B.C. he led a revolt and crowned himself King of the Jews
Abandoned his followers in battle against Roman soldiers
Roman soldiers would carry banners into battle that bore the emblem of Remus and Romulus sucking at the teet of a she-wolf, and their standard bearers would even wear the top half of a wolf head on their helmets. So, we might even say that Simon of Peraea “saw the wolf coming” and he left his sheep to be eaten by the wolves. This is the historical context of John 10.
Not only that, if one were to try to use John 10 to support Apostolic Succession, then they would quickly run into a problem with verse 16.
And other sheep I have which are not of this fold; them also I must bring, and they will hear My voice; and there will be one flock and one shepherd.
- John 10:16, NKJV
Now, this verse has to do with bringing the Gentiles into the fold of Christ. As the Tony Evans Study Bible points out:
The other sheep that Jesus would save are Gentiles who would believe in him so that the church would consist of both Jewish and Gentile believers (see Eph 2:11-22).6
This is basic stuff. However, if we were to try to force this text to support Apostolic Succession we would have problems considering that there are sheep who are not currently (at the time of John 10) in Christ’s fold. Nevertheless, there is a real connection to Christ. What seems to matter to Jesus is a genuine and primary connection to Him not to His Apostles. This is not to say that there shouldn’t be unity with the Apostle since the Church itself is built on “a foundation of Apostles and Prophets” (Ephesians 2:20). There should be agreement with the Apostle’s teaching (Acts 2:42), and submission to their authority (2 Thessalonians 3:14). However, there is no clear cut command in Scripture to keep a paper trail of ordination that goes back to the Apostles.
As a matter of fact, I would argue that we, as evangelical protestants, do have a form of apostolic succession, but there is no paper trail because protestants, unfortunately, don’t value history enough to keep their paper trail.
Let’s take my own ordination, for example. The name of the pastor of the church that ordained me is on my ordination papers. On the back of my ordination papers (not pictured) is a list of all of the pastors who were present and laid hands on me during that service. At some point, many years ago, someone had to lay hands on those pastors to ordain them as well. None of them ordained themselves. So, the lineage goes on, and I’m willing to bet that if there were a paper trail that it could be traced back to the Apostles.
Now, the response to that might be that even if that were true, then I would have to go through a bunch of schisms to get there. Even so, why does it matter? The Eastern Orthodox, the Roman Catholics, and the Church of England all claim Apostolic Succession, and yet they would all claim that the succession of the others is invalid because of their schisms. Who determines which group is being schismatic and which group is being faithful? That’s why creeds and confessions matter, but that’s another post for another time.
Point 3: Two More Quick Responses
We’ve already established that the Apostles and their appointed successors are the ones to whom our Lord gave the commission to teach and instruct the nations.7
It is the duty of the whole Church to teach and instruct the nations. Otherwise, folks could kick back in their easy pews, put their feet up on Sunday morning, and watch the pastor/priest and musicians put on a performance. Nevermind, that most evangelical megachurches do that anyway.
The local Baptist church down the road has no claim to Apostolic Succession and has no desire to have any connection to a Bishop. Yet, whenever they seek to expound on the mysteries of the Holy Trinity and the Incarnation, they will inevitably turn to definitions and documents approved by the Church to explain these truths. This point is extremely salient when we consider the objection that Apostolic Succession is not about a succession of office, but of doctrine. Those who would adhere to this view would say that those who are successors of the Apostles’ teaching, and not merely a successor to their office, have the rightful claim to be the Apostle’s successors. However, this falls short and ultimately puts the cart before the horse. We’ve already established that the Apostles and their successors were tasked and divinely gifted to maintain sound doctrine. How then should we expect that those who claim the be the heirs of the Apostles and nevertheless reject and attack Apostolic teaching have any air of legitimacy?8
I guess it depends on what you’re calling “apostolic teaching.” If you’re calling “the mysteries of the Holy Trinity and the Incarnation” apostolic teaching, then fine. However, if you’re calling the ability of a guy in a funny hat to bless same-sex weddings simply because he has a resume, then I think not.
Here’s the deal. Cory Allen Byrum wouldn’t consider the Archbishop of Canterbury (aforementioned ‘guy in a funny hat’) to be a true Archbishop. Well, why not? He’s got papers that show he’s a purebred. What makes him any less of a German Shepherd than Cory’s bishop? The answer: doctrine. That’s what everything is going to come back to. Not Apostolic Succession. You can argue all day long there needs to be a clear-cut paper trail of bishops that goes back to the apostles, but when one of those guys starts going off the rails and claiming to be the vicar of Christ what’s going to hold the Church together isn’t that paper trail, it’s the Apostles’ doctrine and teaching as found in holy writ. Rather than hand-to-hand succession, this is what Leroy Garrett calls “the apostolic experience.9”
Conclusion
Cory Allen Byrum and I brothers in Christ. Now, he might consider me a stepbrother in Christ or a second cousin twice removed in Christ because I do not belong to an ecclesial body with a purebred bishop. However, there are bishops that I answer to. One of them is named on my ordination certificate, and another is named on the back of my ordination certificate. Above them, I answer to Jesus Christ, the “Shepherd and Bishop of [our] souls.” (1 Peter 2:25)
I do not expect to change anyone’s mind with this article, and there’s certainly more than that can be said about this, but I do hope to give a well-thought-out answer to why I am firmly in the evangelical protestant camp.
For those looking more into these issues, I recommend the following resources:
Book: Papa Don’t Pope by Douglas Wilson
Sermon: The True Apostolical Succession by Charles Spurgeon
Article: The Apostolicity of the Church by Leroy Garrett (article located in Volume 15 Number 5 Page 82 of the Restoration Review)
Byrum, Cory Allen. “Thoughts on Apostolic Succession.” Thoughts on Apostolic Succession - by Cory Allen Byrum, reformedcatholic.substack.com/p/thoughts-on-apostolic-succession.
Dix, Gregory, and Henry Chadwick, editors. The Treatise on the Apostolic Tradition of St Hippolytus of Rome, Bishop and Martyr. Routledge, 1995.
“CHURCH FATHERS: The Didache.” CHURCH FATHERS: The Didache, www.newadvent.org/fathers/0714.htm.
For more information see “Elder, Overseer, and Shepherd: One and the Same Office?” by David Huffstutler, and “Were Early Churches Ruled by Elders or a Single Bishop?” by Michael J. Kruger (Both articles are easily accessible through the links provided.)
Byrum, “Thoughts on Apostolic Succession”
Evans, Tony. The Tony Evans Study Bible. Holman Bible Publishers, 2019.
Byrum, “Thoughts on Apostolic Succession”
Ibid.
Garrett, Leroy. “The Apostolicity of the Church.” Restoration Review, vol. 15, no. 5, May 1973, p. 83.