Should every church align with a living apostle?

16 06 2008

I’m enjoying Alan Hirsch’s two recent posts on apostolic ministry part 1 and part 2. He writes –

To conceptualize leadership as influence, think of a magnet and its effect on iron filings scattered on a sheet of paper. When the filings come into the orbit of influence of the magnet, they form a certain pattern which we all recognize from our school days. Leadership does exactly the same thing—it creates a field which in turn influences people in a certain way, just like the magnet’s influence on the iron filings. The presence of a great leader in a group of people changes the patterning of that group. For instance, Nelson Mandela’s appearance among a group of people will impact them in a significant way. His physical presence will be unmistakable and will change the social climate of the room. Apostolic leadership qualifies the mood of this influence, but the dynamics of influence operates in the same way. It is precisely this field, this matrix of apostolicity that is critical to the emergence of authentic missional church. Because it is the task of apostolic ministry to create environments wherein which the apostolic imagination of God’s people can be evoked, the spiritual gifts and ministries developed, wherein which the love and hope inspired by the gospel can be make known. For instance, John Wimber would have exerted just this sort of influence. Within two decades, Wimber altered the shape of evangelicalism and underscored the role of the Holy Spirit in mission and ministry in a way that has changed us forever. Just as we still feel the influence of a John Wesley even though none of us have met him. Influence is a field that changes behaviors.

I asked the following question –

One thing I’m pondering regarding this apostolic influence is how it works when two apostolic influences collide.

For example, every denomination is aligned with an apostle, most likely the one who founded the group. But usually that person is dead making all of those churches inflexible.

It seems every church body must align itself with a LIVING apostle because there are always seasons where things must be altered.

When I talk to Vineyard pastors about change I’m battling the ghost of Wimbur, Methodist pastors, the ghost of Wesley etc.

Wimbur and Wesley might completely agree with a new direction but they are not alive to consider it so, instead, their apostolic work has been institutionalized and is, therefore, impervious to the work of a living apostle.

This seems a terrible tragedy because Pastors need access to apostolic ministry in order to make necessary course corrections and to be involved in explosive apostolic expansion.

How do we exist in a world where 95% of established churches have no access to living apostolic ministry and have a DNA that makes gaining that access unlikely?

Advertisements