Apostolic Succesion, genealogy part 3


This idea of the three reasons stated functionf of the gnealogy of Christ naturally is the most controversial. But like my best friend always tells me, it's best "to define your terms at the start". So I will..... I've heard the term "The Church" as an "organic being", looked at "organically". Which is exactly what I'm thinking, and strangely enough many of the people who talk about the Church in "organic" terms strangely enough seem to be doing the opposite of what that term implies....


The word organic implies quiet literally that the Church is a "lifeform". That idea is expressed a number of times in scripture itself, where we refer to the Church as "The body of Christ", individual believers as "members" or "parts" of that body (like mouths, eyes, hands etc.). As an entity all the parts of the body must be unified. (This is the part of the body that is pretty much understood by everybody).


Bodies however are not just unified in their coherent structure. Bodies are also stable acrossed time. A person doesn't just start a baby one day, and tranfrom into a full grown adult in a blink of an eye. There is a continuity between what that body is one day, to the next day. So on and so on. Furthermore even when there is an obvious radical change in appearance. Like a skinny kid becomes very, very fat in later life. Their are some obvious characteristics that are the same throughout. That person has the same exact genetic ID that they did as a babe. They have the same exact face, voice etc. So even if they weigh 400 lbs more than they did 40 years ago, it still possible for other people to recongize them if they see those distinctive qualities.


In the Church this concept is fully understood in the term catholic. Catholic just doesnot refer to the Church everywhere. It also refers to the Church "at all times", even when the Church technically was the believing nation of Israel. So this term itself, besides that of "The Body of Christ" naturally implies an "organic" viewpoint of the Church. The Church basically grows from seed to mightly Oak in small incremental impercetebable stages acrossed time.


Ok so now at this point, you might be wondering what does this have to do with Apostolic Succession?

I would say "everything".

To start with I would say that many people who speak of an "organic" view of the Church, infact see it in a highly inorganci way. Meaning they believe the Church magically evolves organically from a kind of Holy Spirit driven Chaos theory. They however do not believe in any real need for a historic connection or unity with Christians of the past, their beliefs, practices etc. I would cite members of the Emergent/Postmodern "House Church movement" especially with this charge. They like to speak about being like "the First Christians", but their depiction of what that life was like ignores not only the testimony of Christians living in the next few centuries, but even things depicted in the Scriptures themselves (like the apostles worshipping and proclaiming the gospel at the synagogues, and temple). They basically are reading elements of the text of Ad 33-100 thinking they know the answers and time leaping forward to their current movement, bypassing everything that came in the middle. Not a very organic approach now is it?


And then you got Chaos theory.... It's really interesting if you look at the basic definition of "Emergence".

"Emergence is the process of complex pattern formation from simpler rules.
This can be a dynamic process (occurring over time), such as the evolution of the human body over thousands of successive generations; or emergence can happen over disparate size scales, such as the interactions between a great number of neurons producing a human brain capable of thought (even though the constituent neurons are not individually capable of thought). "

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence


It really interesting for folks who are trying to come back to "the purity of the 1st Century Church" when this theory could actually explain the God Preordained "emergence" of areas of some of the things of the Church that they consider "pagan" like Ecumenical counsels, the role of the bishops, the importance of Christians meeting together for public worship and the alike. (Their own beliefs of seeing the Bible clearly in a tabula rasa way and believing they have a formula for creating an ideal church is actually very very modern).


Ok so what does this have to do with apostolic succession? Well I would say it has to do with some very fundamental notions that become part of that concept. The biggest is the importance of historical continuity. As I quoted before in this blog, from Tertullian


"But if there be any (heresies) which are bold enough to plant themselves in the midst of the apostolic age, that they may thereby seem to have been handed down by the apostles, because they existed in the time of the apostles, we can say: Let them produce the original records of their churches; let them unfold the roll of their BISHOPs, running down in due succession from the beginning in such a manner that [that first BISHOP of theirs] BISHOP shall be able to show for his ordainer and predecessor some one of the apostles or of apostolic men, ùa man, moreover, who continued stedfast with the apostles. For this is the manner in which the apostolic churches transmit their registers: as the church of Smyrna, which records that Polycarp was placed therein by John; as also the church of Rome, which makes Clement to have been ordained in like manner by Peter. In exactly the same way the other churches likewise exhibit (their several worthies), whom, as having been appointed to their episcopal places by apostles, they regard as transmitters of the apostolic seed. Let the heretics contrive something of the same kind. For after their blasphemy, what is there that is unlawful for them (to attempt)? But should they even effect the contrivance, they will not advance a step. For their very doctrine, after comparison with that of the apostles, will declare, by its own diversity and contrariety, that it had for its author neither an apostle nor an apostolic man;

Tertullian, "On Prescription against the Heretics",32 (c.A.D. 200),in ANF,III:258


You know it interesting Jesus is high priest "in the order of Melchizedek". The great priest of Aalem who had no known lineage. But even given that fact, Jesus lineage is still an issue when it relates to areas of his being messiah, and so is still is given in the text. I also believe Jesus' not having an Aaronic lineage was a necessary aspect of his ministry (It would be just about impossible to be God incarnate and be an Aaronic priest, since that precludes things like virgin births, immaculate conceptions etc.).


Anyway historic continuity has always been very central to both Judaism and Christianity. And even when you have some exceptions like Jesus as high priest of Melchizedek, the Apostle Paul becoming a great apostle inspite of not being one of original disciples etc. Anyway it's funny how even when you have an exception to the rule, the rule gets reinforced later; because the most sure way to bring in false teaching is to make a break with the past. Because doing so means you have no accountability whatsoever and can fashion the gospel anyway you see fit.