Does it ever strike you as odd that while many churches appoint ‘pastors’ and may even call them ‘Pastor X’, they don’t do the same with apostles?…
In my own tribe we don’t have much problem with the role of pastor, teacher or even evangelist, but when it comes to prophets and apostles we seem a little less interested, maybe even averse. I can tell you many churches that have appointed ‘pastors’, but none that I know of that have intentionally appointed an apostle or a prophet.
Why would that be?..
Doesn’t it seem odd that of the 5 broad areas of gifting described in Ephesians the role of apostle and prophet are most often left out of the 21st c church?
I was discussing this with a mate recently who has gone to the dark side and joined the AOG (humour… in case you are getting offended…) where there is a very strong emphasis on the importance of the apostle in church leadership, even to the point of people calling themselves ‘apostle X’. Leaders are intentionally appointed as apostles and their role is developed to reflect that kind of gifting.
I imagine we will have a tough time really developing apostolic leaders while we continue to refer to those in church leadership as ‘pastors’. If you’re actually gifted and wired as a pastor, then the role description of ‘pastor’ fits perfectly, but if people were to call me ‘pastor’ they would inevitably end up disappointed.
I know there are plenty of ‘apostles’ in pastor’s clothing in the churches I mix amongst, but I wonder what that does to their sense of identity and to the expectations of the people they lead?
Could it be that in a consumer driven world we like to hire pastor/teachers because they care for us and look after us and teach us , while the apostle’s primary focus is on new work and beyond the congregation which doesn’t represent good value for money to the average paying customer?
I would actually find it very wanky to be called ‘Apostle Andrew’ and I am not at all arguing for the use of titles (I neither want to be called ‘rev’, ‘pastor’ etc for similar reasons) but I am concerned that in a missionary context we recognise the unique gift of the apostle and prophet to the church every bit as much as the other three.
Maybe its because calling yourself apostle has the connotation that you are spiritually superior to others. You may not mean it to say that, but it may carry that connotation.
“Could it be that in a consumer driven world we like to hire pastor/teachers because they care for us and look after us and teach us, while the apostle’s primary focus is on new work and beyond the congregation which doesn’t represent good value for money to the average paying customer?”
well – yeah!
I never understand why apostle, meaning ‘sent one’ isnt universally applied to missionaries…
I went happily through 35years of life without knowing what a modern-day apostle was. However, when I look back at a lot of the pastors I’ve known over that ride, a lot of them have been lousy pastors, but GREAT apostles!
And there goes one of my biggest “trigger” words. The New Apostolic Reformation (NAR) is actually a huge movement that is asking this question. They answer it by having organizations that bring together “apostles” to network, give oversight, and release. In my experience,(and many others) it was a study in church abuse. I do believe there are apostles in the church today. I also believe there is a certain outlook or temperament that would lend itself to being more apostolic than pastoral. But what I found were men and women who simply had the outlook or temperament or giftings, declaring themselves apostles when the work that followed them did not back up the title. Soon, elitism arose. Then soon followed abuse. (ie – I am the apostle, how dare you question me. Don’t touch God’s anointed, We are the ones who can interpret scripture most properly.”) This movement is gaining strength even in your neck of the woods.
All to say, I think someone can have an apostolic “bent” but an apostle is only known by what is left in his wake. If , at the end of a person’s life, he can show an apostolic work…voila!…he could call himself/herself an apostle. Sorry if it is a bit too late to put it on a business card though.?
I’ve always thought it silly that ‘pastor’ became the standard descriptor for paid church ministers in contemp churches. A traditional church might use the term minister, and typically he is doing largely pastoral work, but the one named pastor is doing the broader range of chuch leadership (typically pastor + preacher + director) and would be better off being named ‘minister’. Esp when it comes to silly role names like ‘worship pastor’.
For most church leaders preaching is a big part of the job, so being a prophet could fit into that.
A lot of churches I imagine don’t just want someone who will cater to the flock, but will somehow increase the size of the flock. Preferably without existing members of the flock having to do much hard work or endure change.
Barb – I hear you on that and my concern is not that we establish that kind of structure, but that we recognise the existence of these people within the church and dont shy away from allowing them to function.
I think we can swing too far the other way, but currently that isn’t a danger in the mob I hang out with.
I have suffered under that misnomer for 14 years now! What I actaully do is often forgotten for what I don’t do, or for what people think I ought to do, rather than an appraisal of how God wired me (or others for that matter).
We need some new monikers that don’t lead to false assumptions and crushed people (on both sides)
Hi Andrew
I’m studying at Ridley Melbourne as part of preparing to be a uni worker, possibly in Tanzania, and have been trying to work some of these things through. The Natural Church Development spiritual gifts quiz tells me I’m an apostle, although their definition is something like “itinerant spiritual advisor”. I figure “missionary” is closer to the mark — the goer, the mobiliser, the equipper, unhinged from institutional structures…
…And I wonder if it’s that last point which has led to apostles being overlooked — because they don’t quite fit the various denominational orders that have accumulated over time…
Cheers
As I understand it, the apostles (and to a lesser extent, prophets), were not nailed down to a local church, but planted and oversaw groups of churches. Baptist churches are suspect of any authority outside the local church (and often within it).
You also have the problem of how you define an apostle – I’ve heard Forge types equate it with entrepreneurs, while Pentecostals will see it more in terms of church authority, and Baptists will probably say that office ceased with the death of the Apostle John! But then Episcopalians see the bishop as a direct descendent in unbroken the apostolic line.
Discuss.
😉