Character and servanthood---not accomplishments---are the primary marks of authentic apostles.

“Jack,” the young pastor asked, “do you think you’re an apostle?”

He was cautious. His inquiry was neither a charge or a criticism, but as part of a study group of 40 pastors with me, he explained that he simply wondered how I saw myself in terms of Ephesians 4:11.

“What do you think?” I countered.

“Well,” he paused, “I think you are?”

How did I respond to his opinion?

I said, “So now what do we do about that?”

I wasn’t affirming his suggestion, but I wanted to find out why he felt it important to know the answer.

The question, for my part, wasn’t---and still isn’t---whether I am or anyone else is an apostle, a question and subject that seems to preoccupy a lot of people today. The issue is, “What is the point of having apostles?” Not, “Who are they?”

Few today question the contemporary place of the apostolic office, and properly so. It has never been absent from the church. But the term has been sparsely used until recently, and some even want to declare it “off limits” since a measure of ignorance and arrogance still surround the subject with problems.

Primary Problems

Problems center on the questions:

“Who are today’s apostles? What authority do they have? These are prompted all the more where “who” is answered by an individual’s own claim or a group’s designation.

Sadly common is that questions of apostolic scope of authority too often supercede any serious concerns about the requirements of soul and spirit, or one’s history of ethical behavior, (for example, concerning marriage, family, ethics, finances, biblical soundness, and so on).

There are clear New Testament qualifications establishing priorities of apostolic leadership. They need review and application today, especially in the charismatic movement.

They have too often been unapplied or foggy where quests for apostolic position and power supplant a commitment to apostolic priorities and purposes.

As strongly as I agree with the propositions that both (1) the edifying gifts of the Holy Spirit (see 1 Cor. 12) and (2) the ministry gifts of the Lord Jesus (see Eph. 4) are timeless and to be functional throughout the whole church age, I disagree with the notion that the latter are simply there for the claiming.

Of particular problem is the way our valid assertions of the present legitimacy of the apostolic office have become distorted by unworthy practices. Consider two:

First, how arbitrary territorial claims have often been staked among groups or in regions. An example of such imposition is when presumptuously announced dictums have been made, such as, “Joe What’s-his-name is the apostle of Denver” or “Ed What’s-his-name is the apostle of St. Louis.” This practice alienates sectors of the church, plays to pride among those who are in that apostle’s “network” and ignites frustration among those who aren’t.

The frustration of the latter isn’t because they feel invalidated, but because of what has been arrogated. Faithful, proven leaders serving a city or region, who observe a “come-lately” blithely declared the area’s God-appointed top gun not only reject such arrogance, but whatever the “apostle” might have had to offer is neutralized.

So, even conceding that the announced “city apostle” may be God’s ordained primary instrument for advancing the whole Church’s mission in an area, let me argue against the need to make the designation.

The reasons are: (1) It isn’t necessary to declare an apostle’s office to authenticate or expedite his assignment; and (2) It isn’t biblical to arrogantly commandeer turf when region’s leaders have neither been consulted nor included in the decision.

Second, some approaches to contemporary “apostle-ing” manifestly revert to oppressive hierarchical structures. Young or discouraged pastors who feel the need to attach to apparent success, as opposed to relating to proven character and servant-hearted authority, submit to a system that does more to provide them with identity than it does to serve them with resources and nurture.

Given time, the evidence is that leaders submitted to such government will ultimately find themselves exploited, not edified, and inevitably disillusioned and distrusting of spiritual authority---something that can cripple their own leadership for a lifetime.
† Back to top

Part II