Are some more EQUAL than others? The benchmarks of Paul speak against such notions...
EPHESIANS 1:1 “Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God, to the Saints in Ephesus, the faithful in Christ Jesus.”
Around 33-34 AD, Paul, a contemporary of Jesus Christ meets the risen Lord, a key characteristic in being appointed as an apostle according to John H.W. Stott. In addition, Stott specifies that an apostle has to be appointed by God and begin his apostolic mission in Jerusalem.
Within the New Testament, Paul's conversion experience is detailed in both Paul's own letters and in the words of his close friend Luke, in the Acts of the Apostles. In both instances, the conversion experience is described to be miraculous or revelatory in nature. It’s worth noting that Luke, a physician, known to be scrupulous in researching for more than two years, in Mary’s domiciled geographical area, prior to beginning the writing of his own epistle. And, he is the only Gentile who contributed to the New Testament and describes Paul’s conversion in Acts 9 as a third-person narrative: “As he neared Damascus on his journey, suddenly a light from heaven flashed around him. He fell to the ground and heard a voice say to him, "Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?"
"Who are you, Lord?" Saul asked.
"I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting," he replied. "Now get up and go into the city, and you will be told what you must do."
According to both sources, Paul was a persecutor of the early Christians and although Paul refers to himself as an "Apostle" of Jesus, it is clear that Paul was not one of "The Twelve" (1 Cor 9:1-2).
AN APOSTLE
Paul's First Letter to the Corinthians 9:1 “But the Lord said to Ananias, "Go! This man (Paul) is my chosen instrument to carry my name before the Gentiles and their kings and before the people of Israel. I will show him how much he must suffer for my name."
And in, Corinthians 15:3-8 “Am I not an apostle? Have I not seen Jesus our Lord?” Interestingly, Paul uses his alternative name “Paul” in this letter, his Roman name; his father was a freed slave, as we know from Paul’s belonging to the Freedman’s Temple. “Saul” means “Asked of God” while Paul simply means “Little.” Some commentators suggest Paul chooses the name that minimizes his own significance.
P.W. Barnett states that ‘apostle’ simply means “messenger There are numerous papyri collections in which the substantive apostolos is used in a secular context to mean a “commissioned agent.” In this context, the apostolos would be much more than simply a messenger. Taking this as the primary source for the term “apostle” as used in the New Testament, it is easy to understand it as, “one sent to act authoritatively in the name of another.” Paul could well be described as an officer of, and commissioned by the [heavenly] court.”
Messengers in the ancient Near East were not mere couriers. They were the official representatives of the sender of the message. Barnett says, “The royal messenger stood in the court of the Great King, participated in the deliberative processes of the court, received the declaration of the king’s wishes from the kings own mouth, and then carried the tablet or sealed role of papyrus to its destination This is why Jeremiah writes,
“But which of them has stood in the council of the LORD
to see or to hear his word?
Who has listened and heard his word?”
“I did not send these prophets,
yet they have run with their message;
I did not speak to them,
yet they have prophesied.
PAUL was an apostle “of Jesus Christ,” not simply an apostle, but by the will of God. That is not to say, however, that Paul saw his role as something more significant than other people’s part in God’s plan. Rather, as C. Leslie Milton writes, “Nothing is clearer in Paul’s writings than his awareness that both his conversion to Christ (2 C. 5:18) and his commissioning as a missionary (Rom. 1:1; 1 C. 15:10) were ‘all God’s doing.’”
Almost every revolt, rebirth and revival of Christian religion in the past has involved a reaction against priestly authority. And it often demanded lay power and activity. The most God honoring successes I have witnessed in TSA were initiated by lay-persons answering mission needs: local hands-on programs answering perceived needs. Not, where leadership appropriated to itself a dominant role and assumed some regulatory status. In my own experience tacit approval came from DCs, TCs and even 2 Generals. They all deemed 'our' initiatives as being Spirit led and ‘shaped in the pattern of early William Booth’, and this in our appointments in 5 different countries! And the very first were the brainchild of one SA recruit, two newly enrolled soldiers, and 2 Supply Officers- none trained in ministry or ordained or yet commissioned. (GED program NY) The 2nd; SA take-over of city mission and rehab center; 2 Auxiliary Captains, Opening Fire in 3 countries – Led by officers who never attended training college, and local SA soldier recruits)
(Booth) “You cannot say you are not ordained. You were ordained when you signed Articles of War, under the blessed Flag. If not, I ordain every man, woman and child here present that has received the new life… I tell you what your true business in the world is, and in the name of the living God I authorise you to go and do it. Go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature!”
More from the Founder
Here we find an essential ambivalence as far as clericalism is concerned – and as far as being a church is concerned. The pragmatic origins of ministry and polity have meant that the Army has championed the concept of the priesthood of all believers and rejected the clerical role, while at the same time it has claimed ministerial status for its officers whenever that has seemed advantageous.
William Booth wanted to disabuse his officers of the notion that there is any “exclusive order of preachers”, Harold Ivor Winston Hill in his A Case Study in Clericalisation, Victoria University of Wellington, 2004. Gordon Cotterill, an officer stationed at William Booth College in London, posted the following on his blog: “Although we have referred to the trend for officers to become clergy and soldiers to think of themselves as laity, there has always been a counter-movement, a consistent tradition of soldier initiative and participation in the Army’s work.
If one accepts Paul’s commissioning and appointment as one equal to a lay ministry position; bandsman, YPSM, HL Sgt., Literary Sgt., and that indeed all Christians are “lay”, in the sense that all belong to the people of God, without distinction of status, ought we not follow the commissioning/ appointment model from Acts 6? In the very first commissioning ceremony in the church, recorded in Acts 6, the brothers choose seven men and appointed them to a particular ministry, and the apostles put their hands on them and prayed. That is all. There is no promise of a new status in the church, no hint that they are now priests and different to the people they are appointed to serve.
Booth in fact made it clear on more than one occasion that this was his theoretical position; his theology required it.
“I have lived, thank God, to witness the separation between layman and cleric become more and more obscured, and to see Jesus Christ’s idea of changing in a moment ignorant fishermen into fishers of men nearer and nearer realization.
Booth maintained egalitarianism from early on; “I honour the Order of Preachers; I belong to it myself… but as to his possessing any particular grace because of his having gone through any form of Ordination, or any other ceremonial whatever, I think that idea is a great mistake…Not only were officers not “clergy” but soldiers in effect were". Booth in 1898 hoped that soldiers would not shirk their duty “by any talk of not being an officer.” Booth's edict applies well; a growing late twentieth century trend has been the employment of soldiers and non-salvationist Christians in ministry roles – as youth workers, pastoral workers and Music and Social Services secretaries, corps leaders, as well as in PR professionals and administrative roles. This has been particularly the case in western countries with declining officer strength; Australia, Canada, the USA and Western Europe. And, it has led to constructive debate about the respective roles and status of officers and soldiers.
Often, with onset of decline, some renewal movement strikes out upon a new trajectory of growth and we have witnessed that there has sprung up pockets of dissent, at issue with decline, expressing Ecclesia rights and responsibility. God has and continues to bless their universal readiness to serve.
Today’s army is following the egalitarian form as we witness soldiers, adherents and friends become involved and take greater control in their local mission. It’s a mission expression and reality endorsed by THQ, in Sweden. (examples follow in the next and concluding article) "...forgetting what lies behind..." (Philippians 3:13) We must focus on the future with Christ, and let him lead us away from the burden of our past. "For I know the plans I have for you," declares the LORD, "plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future.” ( Jeremiah 29:11)
Sven Ljungholm (http://www.fsaof.blogspot.com/)
www.onlineuniversalwork.com
ReplyDelete