One Apostolic Church?

Many Christians, particularly those within liturgical traditions, raise their voices in concert every Sunday, affirming the Christian Faith by reciting the Nicene Creed.  The product of doctrinal development from the Kerygma through the Apostles Creed, the Nicene Creed embodies in dogmatic form the positive statements of truth that comprise the objective criteria for identifying the Christian religion.  

One of these foundational affirmations is, "We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church."

Many people mumble this affirmation without much thought.  If any part of that sentence draws a rise, it's normally the oft-misunderstood word catholic, but what about that word apostolic?  What are we to make of it?  What does it mean that the Church is apostolic?

For our Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox brethren, affirming the apostolicity of the Church is relatively simple.  They understand what they mean by it and they really mean it.  Forgive my oversimplification here, but they believe that their particular tradition is traceable back to the Apostles by mean of an ecclesiastical institution or hierarchy.  Their church is the Church founded by the Apostles.  To put it another way, they view apostolicity institutionally.  

But what about Protestants?  What about the sons of the Reformation, those who trace their spiritual heritage back to the Reformers who broke with the established Church hierarchy in an effort to reclaim the truths of the Gospel?  What about those who have rejected Episcopal polity as a post-apostolic innovation?  Most Protestants have no institutional concept of apostolicity, but can we say, honestly anyway, that we believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church?

If you've ever read my blog before, you know that this is normally the part where I (somewhat presumptuously) answer my own rhetorical questions, but today I am genuinely asking.  This is an issue over which I have been mulling lately, and what follows is more of a general wondering than a concrete expression of conviction.  So far any answers I find seem to lead to more questions, and I'm eager to hear from fellow Protestants, especially those who are Reformed.  If you are a Protestant, what does apostolicity mean to you?  How do we make sure that our churches are apostolic?  Is that even a goal for you and your Christian tradition?

Here are my thoughts so far. 

Firstly, apostolic doesn't necessarily imply a connection to an institutional hierarchy.  Grammatically speaking, at least, it should be possible to be apostolic without being able to trace our spiritual heritage back to the apostles through a line of bishops, as RCs and EOs claim to do.  On the other hand, the early Church seems to emphasize the succession of bishops.  In his Against Heresies Irenaeus makes much of the bishops, viewing them as preservers of sound doctrine and links to the Apostles.  It seems plausible that the architects of the Nicene Creed primarily had bishop-driven apostolic succession in mind when they used the term.  If anyone knows of one, I would love to read a history assessment of just what they meant by apostolic.  I think they probably meant more by it than modern Protestants would be comfortable conceding.   

Secondly, whatever our church heritage or polity may be, we need to be apostolic in our doctrine.  In other words, those Christians who cannot validly claim institutional apostolicity may at least claim doctrinal apostolicity.  Of course, this begs the question as to how exactly one knows that he is being doctrinally apostolic.  Without getting too far ahead of myself, it suffices to say that the first step towards apostolic doctrine is committing ourselves to the apostolic writings.  We must remember, however, that it is impossible to read the New Testament properly without reading it within a historical tradition.  We rely on the Scriptures to guide our doctrine and practice, but we do so within the tradition of Scriptural exegesis.  In other words, this whole just me and my Bible concept is hardly the way to reclaim apostolicity.  Nevertheless, if we want to be apostolic, we have to build our lives around their writings.  Jesus sent the Apostles as His messengers, and He explicitly told them that the Holy Spirit would deliver them more truth that they were not able to hear during His earthly ministry.  If we want to be apostolic, we must read the apostolic writings.    

Thirdly, we need to be apostolic in our practice.  What does that mean?  Well, the Apostles set forth a particular ethical code that was in continuity with and built upon that of the Old Testament.  This code was, of course, taught by our Savior during His earthly ministry, as well.  This standard of behavior dictated sexual purity (abstinence for single people; chastity in marriage), moderation in food and drink, detachment from (not utter condemnation, but freedom from the slavery of) physical wealth, and love and sacrificial service to others.  The Apostles, echoing their Teacher, offer eternal, resurrection life in exchange for a life of bearing one's cross.  They command and commend a life lived according to heavenly priorities.  If we would claim to be spiritual descendants of the Apostles, we must imitate their pattern of living.  One belies his claim to be a Christian if he has no interest in the ethical standards set forth by the Apostles.

Fourthly, we need to be apostolic in our worship.  Here's where things gets sticky.  What I do not mean is that we should reject all post-apostolic innovations (so-called) in worship.  Traditions that developed throughout the history of the Church, while never equal with the teachings of the Apostles, are an important part of our spiritual heritage and can be spiritually beneficial.  Additionally, I think we are often quick to view elements of liturgical worship as later innovations because we don't necessarily understand how the Apostles actually worshiped.  I think many Protestants envision the Apostles sitting around a campfire, swapping spiritual stories and singing Kumbaya.  For instance, the Anabaptists (Quakers, Amish, Mennonite, etc.) and Restoration churches (The Church of Christ, The Disciples of Christ, etc.) thought they were imitating the worship of the primitive church, but they were really just minimalistically applying a few New Testament principles of worship in the Western cultures of their respective eras.  Again, it is impossible to be apostolic without a knowledge of the actual history and practice of the 1st Century Church.  The Apostles did not exist in a vacuum.  They were Jews who worshiped in certain forms.  Christianity is true, or fulfilled, Judaism, not a novel religion created by a group of fishermen.  So we must strive to be apostolic in our worship, and that will sometimes mean that we should worship in ways that cannot be explicitly gleaned from the New Testament.  Again, this is something about which I would love to read more, so send me suggestions for assessments of apostolic worship.  

Fifthly, maybe it's time to stop being Protestant.  Maybe it's time to stop being Reformed.  Before you say I'm going back to Rome, allow me to explain myself.  I am not asserting that we should forget about the Reformation.  Even Roman Catholics are willing to admit that the Reformers raised valid concerns.  However, I think that, while we remain thankful for the Reformation, we should also be willing to critique the unintended consequences thereof.  We need to stop defining ourselves by division.  Our Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox brethren rightly condemn us for the proliferation of denominations and individualism that have marked both the history and personality of Protestantism.  The Reformers viewed themselves not as innovators or rebels, but as restorationists.  They sought to purify the Church--to reclaim the Catholic Church from the hands of the corrupt Papacy.  We can argue over the validity of their claims, but that was certainly how them viewed themselves and their mission.  If we want to be apostolic, we must prioritize the unity and purity of the Church.  Being catholic is a necessary prerequisite to being apostolic.

Those are some of my positive assertions, things about which I am relatively sure.  As I said, these ideas have led to more questions.  For example, if we are to be apostolic in our doctrine and practice, what does that mean for church polity?  After all, it seems that the Episcopal form of government was already developing within the lives of the Apostles.  What about worship?  If we can demonstrate that some aspect of liturgy was apostolic, does that make it binding?  What about Easter and the Lord's Day, both of which have valid claims to apostolicity?

And the questions continue.

Apostolicity should be a goal for all Christians, individually and corporately.  It is not simply the Creed that recognizes this.  Jesus entrusted the Church into the hands of His Apostles, and Paul tells us that the Apostles are foundational to the Church.  I don't think that any single tradition can rightfully claim sole ownership of apostolic ancestry, but I am thoroughly convinced that the Protestant/Reformed tradition is not adequately apostolic.  The question is, how do we reclaim that apostolicity?  I don't believe that we need to go back to Rome or Byzantium, but perhaps we need to learn some lessons from them.  

I'll conclude with a shameless plug for my new home, the Anglican Communion.  Anglicanism, of all Protestant traditions, actively seeks to be both Catholic and Apostolic.  Without abandoning the important truths of the Reformation, Anglicans consciously strive to embrace the Faith handed down by the Apostles through generations of faithful Christians.  Anglicanism is unique because, while undeniably a product of the Reformation, it also a truly ancient Christian tradition because the Faith reached England's shores before the end of the 1st Century.  Anglicans can accordingly claim institutional apostolicity and doctrinal apostolicity.  Other Protestant/Reformed traditions might be able to learn from Anglicanism what it means to be intentionally apostolic.