A Protestant View of “Apostolic Succession”

Does the validity of ordination depend upon the status of the “ordainer”?  A former student of mine and current reader of this blog has asked me to advise her on this question, which, in turn, a friend of hers posed to her. She acknowledges that, while she has her own convictions on the matter, she cannot substantiate them with detailed arguments. The short answer is “no,” but short answers in cases such as this fail to satisfy. Thus, this blog entry will explore the issue, known theologically as the question of “apostolic succession.”

To begin, I would like to offer a disclaimer. While I think that this is an important question, I acknowledge that many Christians, especially Catholic and Orthodox believers, will differ radically from my position. As it turns out, the issue touches upon others that determine the difference in character between most Protestant churches and “episcopal” churches (Catholic, Orthodox, and to a degree, “Anglican” churches). It is an important question, but it does not lie directly at the heart of the Christian Gospel. It involves the principles by which the church will order itself, and especially its clergy.

That said, as a biblical theologian, I turn first to see what the Bible says about “ordination” and quickly discover that, perhaps surprisingly to some, it is relatively silent. The Old Testament refers to the installation of priests and the anointing of kings, but does not report or describe a ritual that produces a change in status. Both of these offices are hereditary in ancient Israel.  One did not become a priest through a ritual; one was born a Levite, just as the next king in Judah would be the oldest (probably) son of the last king. Even the common term denoting the installation of a priest, millu’, (see Lev 7:37; 8:33), a verb meaning “to set, install,” refers most often to setting stones (Exod 25:7; 35:9, 27; cf. 1 Ch 29:2), that is to placing them into service, not changing them into stones or conveying upon them some power or status.

The New Testament refers to a number of functions in the church, namely deacons, deaconesses or “widows,” elders, and bishops (episkopoi, lit. “overseers”). First Timothy 3 details the qualifications and duties of these roles, but says nothing about a ritual of “ordination.” Acts 6:3 and Titus 1:5 mention “appointing” (kathistemi) individuals as deacons and elders, respectively (cf. Hebr 5:1; 7:28; 8:3 in reference to priests). All employ an otherwise “secular” term used regularly to denote the selection and engagement of individuals to exercise responsibility in business and agriculture (cf. Matt 24:45, 47; 25:21, 23; Luk 12:14, 42, 44).  Only two passages in the New Testament, both in Acts, report actual acts of this “appointment/ordination.” In response to the welfare crisis that arose in the early Jerusalem church during time of famine, the apostles encouraged the church to chose reputable men whom they could “appoint to this duty [i.e. the distribution of food to destitute widows in the church]” (Acts 6:3). Before departing the region of Lystra, Iconium, and Antioch for Pisidia, Pamphylia, and beyond, Paul and Barnabas “appointed elders…in every church.” Again, these texts do not describe detailed services of ordination or a theology of apostolic succession. Instead, they leave the impression that this appointment consisted of identifying and commissioning individuals to fulfill specific responsibilities, in one case the distribution of food, not the handling of the mysteries of the faith.

If the Bible has little to say on the subject of ordination, what is the source of the doctrine of Apostolic Succession? Rather than provide a historical answer to that question (When did it arise? How did it develop over time?), it will be simpler to describe sacramentalism, the fundamental theological idea reflected in the idea that proper, valid ordination depends on the status of the ordainer as a successor, in unbroken lineage, of the apostles. A popular online dictionary (https://www.dictionary.com/browse/sacramentalism) defines sacramentalism as “a belief in or emphasis on the importance and efficacy of the sacraments for achieving salvation and conferring grace.” In other words, sacramentalists believe that the water of baptism, itself, has power to confer saving grace; that, once constituted as the host, the elements of Communion, truly the blood and body of Christ, have this power; and that Holy Water, once consecrated, conveys the power of God in ways that ordinary water simply cannot, to cite three examples. For most sacramental churches (i.e. Catholics, Orthodox Christians, and many Anglican/Episcopalians), ordination is such a sacrament. Ordination to the priesthood by a priest properly ordained conveys the authority and power to consecrate and administer all the sacraments. Incidentally, marriage is one such sacrament so that, for sacramentalists, a marriage performed by someone who is not ordained to perform sacraments cannot be the sacrament it is meant to be; it cannot be a true marriage.

For many Protestants, this sacramentalism comes too close to magic and to transactional relations with God, and interposes between God and an individual a system of ritual. Protestantism began with Luther’s assertion of the centrality of sola fidei, by faith alone, and sola gratia, by grace alone: the idea that God forgives and saves as an act of unmediated grace. No medium, whether in the person of a priest or in the substance of baptismal water, is necessary.

I want to be clear again.  I am not ridiculing sacramentalism as a theological stance or those who hold it dear. I disagree with it.

Incidentally, the Roman Catholic Church does not hold the position inflexibly.  As early as the 4^th century, the so-called “Donatist Controversy” raised the question of whether lapsed clergy could perform sacraments. The “Donatists” argued that the efficacy of the sacraments depended upon the character of the administrator: improperly ordained, lapsed, or impenitent priests could not perform valid sacraments.  Eventually (Council of Arles), the contrary view prevailed as the orthodox position of the church.

In sum, apart from the practical consideration of whether one could ever truly trace one’s ordination in an uninterrupted sequence back over two thousand years to an apostle, some ideas associated with apostolic success tend to undermine the central significance of ordination.  All of the major Christian traditions share the understanding of ordination as the church’s endorsement of a person to a responsibility in service of the Kingdom of God. Ordination does not mark an individual as more holy than others; it does not convey extraordinary spiritual powers; it does not elevate an individual in terms of personal authority.  It acknowledges and affirms an individual’s calling to service.  It is ministerial, not magisterial.

The sexual abuse scandals rocking all of Christianity and the greed and pomposity manifest in some corners of the Evangelical right attest to the fact that many of the ordained have lost sight of this central truth. Ordination ought to signify a life lived in selfless service, not self-serving predation.