|
About Jesus Steve Sweetman My Journey Through The Ecclesiastical Maze Part 27 Super-apostles
In The Apostolic Movement The pastor of the church
group I was involved in during the 1990’s took it upon himself to
submit both himself and the church under the authority of an apostle
from the The pastor and I had many
talks about this issue. He
had always been opposed to the Shepherding Movement of the
1970’s because of its over-emphasis on “submission and authority”,
yet he had no problem with “submission and authority” as it related
to this particular Apostolic Movement.
I tried unsuccessfully to explain to him that there was no real
difference between the two movements in respect to “submission and
authority”. One group
submitted to a shepherd, the other to an apostle. Our pastor also taught
that each apostle had “his gospel” based on Paul’s
usage of the words “my gospel” in Romans 2:16 and 16:25.
He believed that Paul preached his own gospel, meaning, his own
specific teaching emphasis. Therefore
Peter, James, John, and others would have preached “their own
gospel” as well. So we
submitted to this apostle’s particular teaching as well as his
direction for the church based on the apostolic authority he had over
us.
I was also unsuccessful
in explaining that there is only “one gospel”.
Paul didn’t have his own distinct gospel. He
preached Jesus’ gospel and clearly taught that if anyone preached a
different gospel, he should be cursed. (Galatians 1:9) I
think our pastor could have used a class in Biblical interpretation,
something my friend and I suggested we could teach.
He declined our offer.
Nothing I could say
changed my pastor friend’s mind on these things, and from that point
on we had a difference of opinion that led to my being
“deleaderized”. Since I
was not willing to whole-heartedly submit to the apostle’s teaching, I
could no longer be a leader in the church.
It was actually suggested
to me that I might feel more at home in another church.
I could hardly believe my ears. This pastor was my friend.
I couldn’t understand how he’d let me go so easily,
especially when he taught “covenant love” with great conviction.
I had three choices, stay and submit to the apostolic authority
and teaching,
stay and not be allowed to participate, or, leave and be branded a
“covenant breaker”. I
told him I didn’t want to leave because my friends were in the church
and I felt that these relationships were very important.
He replied by saying that my friends weren’t an acceptable
reason to stay. I could have
friends anywhere. He
didn’t understand that friendships in the Body of Christ were a result
of God’s doing. The
acceptable reason to remain in the church according to him was for me to
fully embrace the apostle’s teaching.
I considered much of the
apostle’s teaching as “secondary issues” that could be debated but
not worth separating over. Our
pastor considered these teachings as “primary issues” and therefore
were worth separating over. I
concluded that this brand of “covenant
love” was exclusive – “I’ll love you if you
agree with me”. I did stay
until the church fell apart a couple of years
later, but I was more of a pew warmer than anything else, and I can’t
find the ministry of “pew warmer” anywhere in the New Testament. It
seems to be one of the more popular ministries we’ve invented over the
years. I think there’s lots of
misunderstanding about apostles. The Greek word “apostolos” is
transliterated into English as “apostle”.
“Apostolos” simply means “one who is sent”.
More than anything else, an apostle is first and foremost “one
who is sent”, and I believe, “sent to preach the gospel”.
I know of some pastors who claim to be apostles, but they’ve
been in the same location for years.
To me “being sent” implies movement. I
have a hard time seeing a man as an apostle when he’s been pastoring
for twenty years in the same church group.
I do believe that the
apostolic ministry is a valid ministry for today.
I’m not of the opinion that this ministry died with the first
generation church, as some believe.
Apostles are one of four ministries of Christ that Paul mentions
in Ephesians 4:11.
Paul, in 2 Corinthians
11:5 and 12:11 makes reference to what he calls “super-apostles”.
Some apostles back then were billing themselves as being very
special men of God because
they were apostles. You can tell that Paul was quite disgusted with
these “super-apostles” and their superior attitude.
He might well be disgusted with some today who have the same
superior attitude. Apostles
are “sent servants”, not “super-apostles”. Paul refers to himself in
1 Corinthians 3:10 as an “expert builder” who has laid a foundation,
while other men came after him to build on this foundation. This
is where some misunderstanding has
risen. Based on Paul’s usage of the words “expert builder” many
people believe the main job of an apostle is to “build churches”,
but I don’t think so. You
don’t have to take my word, and I won’t get heavily involved in this
discussion here, but I don’t believe that Paul viewed his apostolic
ministry in terms of building churches.
If you look at 1 Corinthians 3:10 closely you’ll see that Paul
only built the foundation to the Corinthian church, not the whole
church. So Paul was more of
an “expert block layer” building the foundation, not an “expert
contractor” building the whole building, at least when it came to the
Corinthian church. I believe Paul’s main
job was to “preach the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ”. He
says that over and over again. Here’s
just one example found in Romans 1:1.
“Paul, a servant of Christ Jesus, called to be an apostle and
set apart for the gospel of God”.
Notice Paul considers his apostleship in terms of being a servant
for Jesus, not in terms of being a “super-apostle”.
He then says that he has been set apart for the gospel, not the
building of churches and the exercising of great super-apostolic
authority. Paul preached
while the Holy Spirit led people to Jesus.
Church building was secondary.
If it was primary to the apostolic ministry as many think, why
did it take Paul so long to return to the groups of believers he founded
to affirm elders? These
groups had been in existence
for years. Actually, Timothy
and Titus did most of the affirming of elders, not Paul. (Titus 1:5) Notice that when Paul,
Timothy, and Titus did affirm elders, and I say “affirm elders”, not
“appoint elders”, that’s all he did.
He didn’t build a hierarchical or corporate organizational
structure. The local church
simply consisted of a few caring elders, helpers called deacons, and the
believers. Paul did not
choose or appoint these elders. He
simply publicly recognized the elders that were already caring for the
believers. This tells me
that church building, especially in terms of a massive organizational
structure was not Paul’s main ministry. What Paul says in 1
Corinthians 9:2 is interesting. He
says, “though I may not be an apostle to others, surely I am to
you”. Paul says that he
was not an apostle to all Christians, only to those he led to Jesus.
So the apostolic ministry should be viewed in terms of caring
for specific people. This
puts the emphasis on “caring for specific people”, not the apostles
teaching or his authority, and certainly not on an eloquent
ecclesiastical edifice. The role of an apostle is
a big subject and I could say more, but I’ll leave it at that.
Paul considered himself a servant and a preacher of the gospel.
Yes, he did say one time that he was an “expert builder”, but
as I’ve pointed out, that was simply in reference to building the
foundation of the Corinthian church.
He also did not view himself as a “super-apostle” that he
criticized so harshly. I
dare say that Paul was more interested in preaching and leading people
to Jesus than building churches, especially the type of churches we know
today. If you think
differently I suggest you closely study Paul’s writings and how he
lived from the book of Acts, and see if you come up with the same
conclusion.
|