Posts tagged ‘Apostles Today’

I cannot recall any text in the New Testament that indicates that every “local church” is to have its own vision. The idea that every church should have a vision statement came from the business world, as every business needs to know what it is about. The church is not a business, at least God never intended for it to be a business. So, why do churches have visions statements?

“Where there is no vision, the people perish.” (Proverbs 29.18a KJV)

This half of a verse of Scripture taken out of its context is pretty much the source of the idea that every church should have a vision statement. After all, we don’t want our churches to perish. Let’s look at this verse so we can understand why using it as a proof-text for having church vision statements is completely wrong.

Here is the verse, in its entirety, in three other translations. Seeing the different ways this verse has been translated will help us ask the questions necessary to understand the verse.

Proverbs 29.18

“Where there is no vision, the people are unrestrained, but happy is he who keeps the law.”(NASB)

“Where there is no revelation, the people cast off restraint; but happy is he who keeps the law.” (NKJV)

“Where there is no revelation, the people cast off restraint; but blessed is he who keeps the law.” (NIV)

The first phrase of this verse is translated “Where there is no vision” and also “Where there is no revelation”. Why is this so? Duane Garrett, in his commentary on Proverbs, Ecclesiastes and Song of Songs, explains, “The word of “revelation” is commonly associated with the visions of the prophets and stands for the importance of prophetic exhortation to the community here.” The word means “vision”, but refers to prophetic visions that are revelations from God. This is why some translations use the word “vision” while others use the word “revelation”.

We see this type of vision in the New Testament when Peter was on the roof top of Simon the Tanner in Joppa (Acts 10.9-23). This vision was God’s revelation to Peter which came to him in a state of ecstasy. In Peter’s case, the revelation from God was that the idea that a non-Jew was “unclean” was no more, but that all men could have communion together in Christ.

Where Old Testament prophets are concerned, the visions they received from God were often revelations from God to call His people to repentance. We see time and again in the Old Testament that God’s people would go astray. The prophets called the people back when they had wandered away from God and His plan. The ministry of the prophets was largely to call the wayward people of God back to faithfulness.

Revelation or prophetic vision is placed alongside the Law of God in Proverbs 28.18. To more easily understand the whole verse in English we need to switch the order of the two halves. The one who abides by God’s Law will be happy or blessed. When one goes astray it is the vision, God’s revelation to the prophet, which God uses to call the wayward back. So, where there is no vision, no prophetic utterance, the wayward one lives a life of unrestraint, he perishes. Duane Garrett summarizes the idea in this way, “Social harmony and restraint cannot be achieved without the exhortations of the prophets and the teaching of the law.”

The word “vision” in this text has nothing to do with visionary leadership or vision statements in “local churches.” Rather, it has everything to do with the ministries of the teachers and the prophets. We have already read in Ephesians 4.11 that God gave some apostles, some prophets, some evangelists and some pastors and teachers to the church in order to have a complete and healthy church. So, when understood correctly, Proverbs 29.18 can very well apply to the ministries of the prophets and teachers in the church today.

Let me restate that Proverbs 29.18 has nothing to do with “visionary leadership” in the church. It has everything to do with the combined ministries of the prophets and teachers – two of the five gifts of God to the church.

I cannot recall any text in the New Testament that indicates that every “local church” is to have its own vision. This idea, to me, is akin to “There is a way that seems right to a man, but in the end it leads to death (Proverbs 14.12 NIV). When each local church has its own vision the result is what we see in many places today – “churches” looking inwardly rather than outwardly; churches that are more like social clubs than rescue centers. What is the result? Little to no harvest of lost souls. Where is the grain of wheat that falls to the ground, dies and then results in an increase of 30, 60 or 100? Where is the Christian who reproduces himself 30 times in his lifetime? He should be the least productive person in the church!

To the contrary, we have buildings that we erroneously call churches where people can come and sit on comfortable benches or in comfortable chairs and listen and then do nothing. Sinfully, the “church” finds this to be acceptable behavior for “little Christs”. The vision statement of your church may permit such taking of the Lord’s name in vain, however, the God-given vision of the apostle permits no such thing. The vision of the apostle is a vision to reach a people or a place and his function, along with the other four, is to equip the saints to do the reaching.

Robert Banks, in his book, Paul’s Idea of Community, described the church in this way:

The community at Corinth is not said to be part of a wider body of Christ or to be a ‘body of Christ’ alongside numerous others. It is ‘the body of Christ’ in that place. This suggests that wherever Christians are in relationship there is the body of Christ in its entirety, for Christ is truly and wholly present there through his Spirit (12.13). This is a momentous truth.

God’s design for the church in a place is not to have factions, or denominations, but to have unity. In the same way, God’s design is not for each “church” to have a vision which seems right in its own eyes, but to have an interdependent relationship with the apostle God has called to that place and to whom God has given a vision, burden, strategy and stewardship of the gospel for that place or people.

There has been much emphasis on “vision”, “vision statements” and “visionary leadership” in the past several decades. Numerous authors wrote books about these subjects as they relate to the church (well, the institutional church anyway). Today, many churches, if not most churches, have a vision statement (though this does not necessarily mean that they have a vision).

When I was in seminary I had a class or two that placed an extreme amount of emphasis on having a vision and being a visionary leader. After all, “Where there is no vision, the people perish (Proverbs 29.18)”. So, I set about developing a vision for the work God had set before me. My first ministry position was as a Minister of Education and Administration. I taught the Sunday School teachers my vision for the Sunday School ministry. They understood it, but they didn’t really buy into it. I didn’t know what else to do. Today, I understand much better what the problem was. I could develop a vision and I could teach a vision, but I could not cast the vision in such a way that the teachers would buy into it.

The pastor of that same church was anything but a visionary leader. He would be the first to tell you that. Sadly, because of what I had been taught about the importance of vision and the necessity of the church having a visionary leader I thought he was not a very good pastor. Now that I understand what the Bible teaches rather than what seminary taught me, I realize this man of God is one of the few true pastors I have ever known. He is a pastor in the Ephesians 4.11-13 sense of the word. And, the truth of that matter is that “vision” is not the realm of the true pastor.

There are some “pastors” within the structures of the institutional church who are very good orators and who can cast a vision. How this vision is developed and the scope of the vision have a great deal to do with determining whether or not it is an apostolic vision. Most churches have a vision of how their church should be growing, of the ministries (often programs) that it should be developing and sometimes how the church should be involved in missions endeavors. This type of vision is most often about the church. This type of vision often will not view the church in relationship to other churches in the same city or among the same people. This type of vision may be expressed as an outward-looking approach to ministry, but will most often be applied as an inward-looking ministry.

Admittedly I am writing in very general terms. Nonetheless, if your church has a vision or a vision statement it probably does not fall far from this description.

So, what’s the difference between the vision of a church and the vision of an apostle?

Not all visionary leaders are apostles, but every apostle is a visionary leader. I have met visionary leaders who are great orators, but who lack passion for the work; who lack a burden for the people or place about which they greatly proclaim a vision. Many such visionary leaders move on to the next best offer.

The apostle is not simply a good orator who can sell people on a vision for the church he pastors. The apostle’s calling will be to a people or place. The apostle’s vision will relate to that place or people. The apostle’s vision will be larger than any one “church”. Denominationalism does a great deal to complicate the work of the true apostle today. Many churches follow party lines, denominational leadership, and have no ears to hear the voice and vision of the true apostle. Centuries ago we lost the truth of the interdependence that exists between apostles and local churches.

The apostle’s vision will be a living vision. He will see how the gospel will spread through the people or the place. God will give him the ability to see what will be required for Jesus Christ to be lifted up to draw all men to Himself. The vision of the apostle will carry with it the anointing of God to reach the people or the place.

The institutional church in North and South America and Europe generally does not have a place for the Ephesians 4 apostle. Cities may have numerous “local” churches, but only in very rare instances does one find the concept of the church of the city or the church of the region as it existed in the New Testament (I expand this idea in my article The New Testament Concepts of the Church). Within the individual churches there is usually an internal focus rather than an outward focus. The pastor, or pastors, of the church are expected to minister to the members of the church and maybe grow the church in the process. It is extremely rare to find a local church that considers itself to be the church of the city and truly pursues reaching all of the lost in the city (or region).

Imagine that the apostle to the city, the man that God has hard-wired to reach all the lost in that city, is hired by an institutional church in that city. He has a God-given burden for the whole city to be discipled. But, the institutional church that has called him as “pastor” has long since turned its focus inward. This church puts 90% of its time, money and focus into ministry to the members of the church and maybe 10% to outreach (and that only half-heartedly). And their “pastor” who has an apostolic call and burden is in anguish over the lost souls of the city, but is relegated to putting spiritual bandages on self-inflicted conflicts within the church membership and spoon-feeding spiritual babes who should already be feasting on the Word of God. Do you think he might be frustrated?

If this man of God does not actually know that he’s an apostle (and not all apostles know they are apostles) he probably doesn’t know what else to do or even why the situation seems so wrong. The fact is that the apostle is not a “pastor” and institutional churches which look beyond themselves to an entire city or region are few and far between. Actually, I’m not sure I know of any. So, many apostles in North and South America and Europe just don’t have a place in the structure of the institutional church.

In some of these areas there are denominations that have missionary sending agencies and parachurch organizations which have ministries that do not quite fit within the organizational structure of the local churches. These denominations, organizations and agencies have hierarchical leadership structures and there are times that apostles can enter into these and actually serve as God has designed them to serve.

One apostle that I know works within one such mission sending agency. God has hard-wired him to reach a specific people group. I can remember talking with him about the future. What if, upon reaching enough of this people, the agency asked him to take on a different role overseeing the work among several people groups in the part of the world where he worked? I remember the difficulty this question posed, even when asked hypothetically. Would he be able to continue to be effective in discipling the people God hard-wired him to reach if he took on responsibilities that divided his attention and focus? While the thought of being able to direct the work among several peoples sounded like a good use of his God-given abilities, he concluded that he would probably not be able to continue reaching the people God had called him to reach if his attention was divided and his focus applied to several peoples. I found great wisdom in this conclusion. A true apostle should always stay within the scope of his call, whether it is to a people or a place, for this is the ministry that God has given him an unction/power/authority to fulfill. From the point of view of hierarchical structures, it is wise to find workers who have proven themselves effective and promote them to positions of greater responsibility. If offered such a position of “greater responsibility” the apostle should not take on such a role without a clear word from God that it is God expanding the responsibility and not man. Such a word from God might come through a prophet, or from someone with the spiritual gift of a word of knowledge or word of wisdom.

What if…?

Imagine with me if you will, that an apostle to a specific region was placed in leadership of an agency with a global scope for making disciples. This man of God was quite effective in directing the work to reach the people of said region. For this, he was asked to take leadership of the work on a global level. If this man were as John Wesley, with a call from God which gave him a clear understanding that “the world is my parish” then all would be good. If this man were as John Knox, with a call from God which gave him a clear understanding that “give me Scotland or I die” then all would not be good. Knox was God-wired to reach Scotland and he pretty much focused himself to reach Scotland. Wesley was God-wired to reach more than a region or a people and his work spread across the globe. This is generally speaking, of course, but I think it helps to understand my hypothetical example. If an apostle to a region of the world took on the leadership of an agency with global scope, would he be as effective in reaching the world as he was reaching in reaching the region that he was God-wired to reach? Would he be able to divorce himself from the vision, the burden, and the strategies that God had given him to reach the region in order to lead others who had been God-wired with a burden and a vision to develop effective strategies to reach the people and places to which they had been called? Or, would he focus the efforts of the agency on the region God had wired him to reach? Would he apply the strategies God gave him for reaching his region to the entire world? If Knox had taken what worked in Scotland and applied it to China, would he have reached China? If Wesley had stayed in England, would he have been effective to reach the global parish God wired him to reach?

The apostle today must understand how God has wired him and work accordingly. We live in a day and age where promotion is the reward of success. That is not how God measures success for the apostle. God may open more responsibility for the apostle in the region God has placed him, or among the people to which God has called him to make disciples. However, the apostle must pray long and hard before taking on responsibilities that will divert his focus away from the place or people to which God has sent him.

Every believer has the responsibility of making disciples (Matthew 28.18-20). However, God calls some people to go into other cultures to make disciples. The mission field is wherever someone is not yet a disciple. Being a missionary is not about travelling to another country. Nonetheless, God calls some men and women to do just that in order to make disciples. This calling is not the call to be an apostle in the Ephesians 4 sense of the word. Not all who are called are apostles.

The call of the apostle is a little different, or maybe a lot different.

The call to a place or a people is often thought of in current mission circles to relate to unreached people groups or unreached cities. I do not believe it is limited to that. I believe the apostle’s function is needed everywhere that there are unreached people, not only where there are unreached people groups. If you want to see why I think that, you can read my article “Our Mission,” which explains my understanding of the Great Commission.

We see this idea of being called to a people or peoples in Peter (Galatians 2.8) and Paul (Romans 11.13 and Galatians 2.8). Paul was the apostle to the Gentiles (non-Jewish peoples). Peter was the apostle to the Jews (a people). Yet, Paul almost always started his work in a new city in the Jewish synagogue (where there was one) and Peter was sent by God to Cornelius, a Gentile. So, we cannot derive that an apostle to a people only works with that people group, but that his primary focus is making disciples among that people.

At a certain point in the history of the church in the Book of Acts, almost all of the apostles left Jerusalem. Only James remained there. From this I derive that his calling as an apostle was to the city of Jerusalem, or perhaps that it extended from Jerusalem into the surrounding region. I do not have a specific verse of Scripture to quote to prove that statement, but that is how I see the situation. There are, in the world today, apostles who state their calling to be within a certain region (or city) and to all the people(s) who reside there, rather than having a call to a specific people within that region (or city). I do not state that in order to use the experience of today to “prove” what I think was the reality of the church then. To the contrary, I want to show that one claiming to be an apostle to a city or a region today is not outside the bounds of Scripture in making that claim.

There should be no confusion about the call of the apostle to a people or place in comparison to a man who has the title of “pastor” or even “apostle” within the hierarchy of the institutional church. The apostle in Ephesians 4 has a ministry that is far larger than any single church. That is not to say that an apostle might not actually hold such employment, but a true apostle will find great frustration in such a position. It must also be clearly understood that the call of the apostle is not the call to climb the leadership ladder of an organization, moving from one place to the next to get ahead in his career as a minister. However, it may occur that an apostle will end up at the head of an organization which ministers within a city or region or among a people or even all the peoples of the world.

Wolfgang Simson cites John Knox of Scotland as an apostle in the history of the church. And, it may be that John Wesley, with his “the world is my parish” thinking, was an apostle. The apostle’s calling will be to a city or region, or to a people.

The call of the apostle will be accompanied by a burden for that place or that people. “John Knox, the reformer of Scotland, an apostolic man, once prayed: ‘God, give me Scotland or I die!’ (Simson, Houses That Change the World, p. 122).” When I heard Simson teach this he followed this statement up by saying that God gave Knox Scotland, and then he died.

When Jesus sent Ananias to Saul (Paul) He explained that Saul would be His instrument to carry the gospel to the Gentiles and the Jews. Jesus also told Ananias that He would show Paul how much he would suffer for His name (Acts 9.15-16). Paul suffered, but yet he had an unquenchable thirst to press on to carry the gospel further to reach Gentiles who had not yet been reached. An apostle today will suffer to get the gospel to the people or place to which he has been called by God. The apostle will weep over that people or place, will sweat to see to it that the gospel penetrates and sticks, will bleed to see Christ made known and disciples made – blood, sweat and tears, and sufferings beyond those are the reality of the apostle. The apostle will be poured out like a drink offering to reach the place or the people with the good news of Jesus Christ (Philippians 2.17 and 2 Timothy 4.6).

I am still processing through one more idea related to the apostle’s burden. Paul consistently wrote about remembering almost every church he planted in his continued prayers. Is this kind of prayer indicative of an apostle? Many people pray seriously and devote a lot of time to prayer. However, the continuous prayer for churches that have been started and the believers who have been discipled may be another characteristic of the apostle’s burden for a people or a place.

I have seen and heard people today claim to be apostles, but few who have been willing to shed their own blood to make the gospel known. I have, however, met a few who are so burdened for the people or place of their calling that “blood, sweat and tears” is not an understatement.

So, what is the ministry of apostles in the church today?

First, let me emphatically state that God’s design for the apostle today is not to be a titled office holder in the hierarchy of the church. The apostle today is not a super church leader with authority over everyone else. The apostle today is not one who must be obeyed by everyone else without question.

Apostleship is not a spiritual gift. If someone claims to have “the gift of the apostle” they misunderstand what it means to be an apostle. In Ephesians 4.11 the texts says that God gave some apostles, some prophets, some evangelists and some pastors and teachers to the church in order to have a complete and healthy church. Please do not misunderstand me – the man claiming to be an apostle is not necessarily God’s gift to the church. Previously I wrote briefly about Apostle X. It was apparent that he thought he was God’s gift to the church. His attitude was completely wrong. God gave apostles to the church – the function of the apostles in the body of Christ is God’s gift to the church, along with the function of the prophet, the evangelist, and the pastors and teachers.

The four apostles I have met do not even like to hear the word apostle in the same sentence as their own name. They are humble men. They know they have a ministry, a responsibility, a function within the church, but not an office.

I believe the apostle today will have the following characteristics:

A call from God to a place or to a people.
A burden for reaching that place or people.
A vision of what God wants to do to reach that place or people.
A God-given strategy to reach that place or people.
A stewardship of the gospel for that place or people.

Each of these characteristics will need to be explained further, and we’ll do that in posts to come.

The word apostolos means “sent one”. So, from that we derive that an apostle is one who is sent. But, the word apostle also has a range of meanings in the New Testament and we’ll have to begin to take a look at those meanings if we are to understand who apostles were in the New Testament and who apostles are today.

Paul wrote to the followers of Jesus in Corinth and told them that they were ambassadors of Christ (2 Corinthians 5.20). I believe that the description “ambassadors” applies to all the followers of Jesus in all times and in all places. So, there is a sense in which all followers of Christ are sent ones, apostles, though I do not know any text of Scripture that uses the term apostle in reference to all the followers of Jesus. Regardless, that is not how the word apostle is used in Ephesians 4.11-13, as it is clear not all followers of Christ are in view in that description.

We’re really trying to come to an understanding of the meaning of the word apostle in Ephesians 4.11-13, And God gave some apostles, and some prophets, and some evangelists, and some pastors and teachers, for the equipping of the followers of Jesus for the work of service, to the building up of the body of Christ; until we all attain to the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a mature man, to the measure of stature which belongs to the fullness of Christ.

There are some people who believe that the word apostle as it is used in Ephesians 4.11-13 finds its modern fulfillment in the sending of missionaries. They reason that missionaries are the “sent ones” of churches today. Again, they grab the general meaning of the word apostle and try to fit it to the post-Reformation reality of the church. I am a missionary, but I am not an apostle in the Ephesians 4 sense of the word. Where Ephesians 4 is concerned, I am a teacher, but I am also a cross-cultural missionary. Most of the missionaries that I know are evangelists, pastors and teachers, but very few are apostles as we read about them in Ephesians 4 (and I have yet to meet any who are prophets). So, I do not agree with those who see missionaries today as all being equivalent to the apostles that God has given to the church in order to have a complete and healthy church.

We find the word apostle used in many texts in the New Testament, but the word is not always used to indicate the same thing. Let’s look at a few examples.

The word apostle is applied to Jesus in Hebrews 3.1. Jesus was certainly one sent. However, Jesus was not an apostle in the Ephesians 4.11-13 sense of the word apostle.

Jesus chose twelve men to be His disciples. The word “apostle” is sometimes used in reference to these twelve men. The ministry of the twelve and their unique relationship with Jesus leads me to believe that the apostles referred to in Ephesians 4 are not apostles in the same sense as the twelve apostles (and Matthias and Paul). The key to understanding this will be to understand that the New Testament refers to more than 14 men as apostles.

In fact, there are 22 people in addition to Jesus who are referred to as apostles in the New Testament. Here’s the list:

Paul – many Scriptures, but Rom. 11:13 “to the Gentiles”
Peter – many Scriptures, but I Peter 1:1, Matthew 10:2
Andrew – Matthew 10:2
James (son of Zebedee) – Matthew 10:2
John – Matthew 10:2
Philip – Matthew 10:2
Bartholomew – Matthew 10:2
Thomas – Matthew 10:2
Matthew – Matthew 10:2
James (son of Alpheus) – Matthew 10:2
Thadeus – Matthew 10:2
Simon the zealot – Matthew 10:2
Judas Iscariot – Matthew 10:2
Matthias – Acts 1:26
Barnabas – Acts 14:14
James (Jesus’ brother) – Galatians 1:19
Epaphroditus – Philippians 2:25
Andronicus – Romans 12:7
Junia (a female apostle) – Romans 16:7
Cephas – may also be Peter I Cor. 9:5, but is not necessarily Peter
Silas – I Thessalonians 2:6
Timothy – I Thessalonians 2:6

I have no way to speculate about how many apostles actually existed in the New Testament era. I do find the following text to be interesting though.

For I [Paul] delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that He appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. After that He appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time, most of whom remain until now, but some have fallen asleep; then He appeared to James, then to all the apostles; and last of all, as to one untimely born, He appeared to me also (1 Corinthians 15.3-8).

In I Corinthians 15:3-8 Paul refers to Jesus appearing to Peter and then to the Twelve after His resurrection and before His ascension. In the same context, Paul states that Jesus appeared to James and then to all the apostles. Paul stated that Jesus had already appeared to the Twelve and Paul goes on to refer to all the apostles. That he referred to both seems to indicate two different groups. I believe the two different groups are the Twelve (a group of apostles that would include Matthias and Paul) and then the Ephesians 4 type of apostles. I believe the first type is no longer with us, but that the later type of apostles remain and minister among us today.

Please check back soon, as I plan to explain my understanding of the ministry of apostles today.

I went to a non-denominational meeting of pastors a few months ago. The organizers had invited a well known apostle from this area to speak. This man had received the blessing, the unction, of a well known Pastor/Prophet from another country and therefore had gained esteem locally. I’ll refer to this apostle as Apostle X.

Apostle X revealed several things about his ministry while he was preaching. He is the pastor of a large church. He is an evangelist. He has a teaching ministry. And, during his preaching he stated, “The Prophet commands the Spirit.” He was, of course, referring to himself as the prophet who controls the Holy Spirit. Following this announcement, he said, “If you want to receive the unction raise both your hands!” Sadly, almost all the pastors from this city raised both of their hands. Now, let me explain why I find this to be saddening.

And God gave some apostles, and some prophets, and some evangelists, and some pastors and teachers, for the equipping of the followers of Jesus for the work of service, to the building up of the body of Christ; until we all attain to the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a mature man, to the measure of stature which belongs to the fullness of Christ. (Ephesians 4.11-13)

The Bible clearly states that God gave these five to the church in order to have a complete and healthy church. Apostle X was claiming to be all five in one person. This goes against what the Bible clearly teaches. It is saddening that he makes this claim, but sadder still that the majority of the pastors in the city where I live and minister do not know the clear teaching of Scripture on this matter.

The claim made by Apostle X – the prophet commands the Spirit – was shocking! Yet, very few of the pastors in the room found it offensive to hear a man say, “I can command the Holy Spirit of God!” Rather, they hoped this was true and hoped that Apostle X would command the Spirit to give them power. They are hungry for what no man can give them.

One of my greatest concerns is that Apostle X may very well have a powerful spirit that he can command. However, no man can command the Holy Spirit of God. Only God the Father and Jesus the Son can command the Holy Spirit.

I found Apostle X to be a very present example of a false apostle; a man who does not understand the New Testament nor how it applies to apostolic ministry today. This is but one example of the misuse, or abuse, of the title “apostle” today.

Nonetheless, I will not allow the misuse, or abuse, of the word “apostle” deter me from seeking the function of the apostle in the church today.

In 2 Corinthians 11.13 we find that false apostles masquerading as apostles of Christ already existed in the New Testament church less than a generation after it began. That did not deter the true apostles of Christ from calling themselves apostles and carrying out their God-given functions within the church.

So, false apostles existed then and they continue to exist today. Our method for determining the true from the false is to test the messages with Scripture. I know four true apostles. In the weeks to come I’ll explain that.

The word “apostle” means “sent one”. Knowing that does not even begin to scratch the surface of what the New Testament teaches us about apostles. Many people are beginning to talk about apostles in the church today and apostolic ministries in the world today. That makes some people a little apprehensive, a little nervous. After all, just what do the folks mean who are talking about apostles and apostolic ministries?

I grew up in Southern Baptist churches – both traditional and contemporary. We had pastors and teachers and occasionally an evangelist. I never gave it much thought. That’s just the way it was and I assumed that was all there was to it. Even in seminary we never really looked beyond that reality of church. Then one day I came across someone teaching about apostles and I really thought they were out of their mind. Imagine having apostles like Peter and Paul running around today writing new books of the Bible and doing miracles. I could not accept it. The canon of Scripture is closed! There will be no more Bible written!

After arriving on the mission field and digging deeply into Scripture to see just what the church of the New Testament was like, I came across a text I had not truly considered before. In Ephesians 4.11-13 we read,

And God gave some apostles, and some prophets, and some evangelists, and some pastors and teachers, for the equipping of the followers of Jesus for the work of service, to the building up of the body of Christ; until we all attain to the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a mature man, to the measure of stature which belongs to the fullness of Christ.

Then I realized what this text means. God gave apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers to the church in order to have a complete and healthy church.

I had to ask myself, If apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers were necessary in the First Century in order to have a complete and healthy church, why do we believe that all five are not necessary today?

I have talked about this with many friends and colleagues. I have heard many arguments from theology and church history for why people think they are not necessary. However, I have yet to find any text of Scripture that tells me that some of these gifts of God to the church will cease to exist.

That is the process that I went through to arrive where I am today. I do believe that all five of these functions are necessary if we are to have a complete and healthy church today. I’ll qualify that by saying that I have heard and seen the title “apostle” abused far more often than I have seen it applied correctly. That saddens me, but it does not discourage me from seeking the true and right application of the function of the apostle in the church today.

In the weeks to come I want to continue explaining my understanding of apostles and apostolic ministries. I hope you’ll join me.