what do you think about apostles … today?

I grew up in Alberta, Canada, for any who might not know. Alberta is one of the wealthiest provinces in Canada due to huge oilfields. The oilfields were mainly discovered after World War II. Prior to that, Alberta was largely an agricultural economy subject to the ups and downs of world markets. And of course, the Great Depression was a huge downer.

During those years, a radio preacher got interested in the theories of Social Credit. He lobbied the government to adopt these policies, but when rebuffed formed the Social Credit party and became Premier of the province in 1935. He was Premier for eight years, but died suddenly, to be replaced by his right hand man.

The preacher’s name was William Aberhart. He was a complicated individual, very insecure as a person in some ways, and very eclectic in his theology, although we would probably think of him as basically orthodox.

When I say eclectic, I mean that he would pick up new theology as he went along, becoming an enthusiast for some new quirk as it came to his attention. He mostly served as a lay preacher, but at one point he led a Baptist church in Calgary to designate him as its “apostle”. Under him, there served a pastor, but he was the “apostle.”

What do you think of that?

What do you think of anyone today who would have such an office?

Doesn’t it strike you as a bit… odd?

Apparently it doesn’t strike some people as odd. Consider this:

Our polity stands upon three principles: plurality among elders, the senior pastor, and partnership with apostolic ministry. We practice plurality of church leadership for the simple but compelling reason that the churches represented in the New Testament were governed by more than one leader. We call this plurality “team ministry.” It is the strength and unity of team ministry that provide the foundation from which elders serve the church and stand accountable for their lives and doctrine. The role of senior pastor is based upon the foundation of plurality, which prevents a drift towards autocracy. The Old Testament offers a gallery of names that remind us of God’s practice of using one to influence many. In the gospels, we are told that Christ chose the Twelve, but ordained Peter to fill a uniquely prominent role. In New Testament times, the Jewish synagogues were ruled by a council of elders, but each council had a chairman, or “ruler of the synagogue.” In like manner, Paul led a growing team of apostolic men. In the Trinity there is a head, in the church there is a head, and in the home there is a head. These examples, and many others, illustrate the notion that biblical leadership, though shared, is most frequently organized and facilitated by a central figure. The senior pastor is therefore called to build a team, not a personal ministry. His effectiveness should be measured by the maturity of his plurality. With regard to the principle of apostolic ministry, we want to be clear that the men identified as apostles within ________ _______ ________ are understood by all to hold a position decidedly and radically inferior to that of the original twelve Apostles. But the label is retained because Scripture appears to offer another type of apostle – one that neither writes Scripture, nor is counted among the twelve. In fact, there appear to be at least eight others, apart from Paul himself, who graced the pages of the New Testament in apostolic ministry. In our view, apostolic ministry can exist today without comparing its authority or impact to Paul or the twelve. Briefly stated, the role of the apostle is to ensure that the gospel is preached and applied in the daily life of the church. Concentrating attention on the writings of Luke and Paul, one might conclude that apostles are devoted to church planting, being set apart for the gospel and sent forth with the gospel, that they might protect the gospel and build with the gospel. They are called to serve churches as spiritual fathers, with primary responsibility during a formative season in a local church (much as earthly fathers do with the formative years of their children), a pattern that eventually transforms into a partnership with mature local churches. [emphasis added]

What do you think about that?

This is another aspect of Sovereign Grace Ministries and C. J. Mahaney that I find astonishing and disturbing, besides the tongues and prophecy. ((Section of web page quoted is about half-way down, under the question, “How do you govern your churches?”))

Why would conservative evangelicals, much less fundamentalists, want to enter into ministry partnership with … “apostles”?