My personal view is that the First Church committed it's first organizational sin when it confused assingment of task with assingment of position.
If "apostleship" is a position, "
apostolic succession" is a necessity as is all the evils associated with position, maneuverings, the usurp of authority, and the power of authority or rankings.
On the other hand, if such is an assignment of task (I Tim 3:1 where office does not appear but these words do "
if anyone desires to being an overseer, he desires a good work" [comfort and brown]), the evils mentioned above disappear.
James apparently was looked up to as a leader in the Jerusalem church. But when it came to crunch time (Acts 15), the decisions made sprang from a collaborative effort and not from any decision stated ex-cathedra. Peter does not argue for an office of rank as he discusses the work of elders (I Pet 5:1ff). Rather, he insists that the usurping of authority (lording it over the flock) is wrong, that the bishops authority is in example. Peters comments work most consistent
ly with the notion of servitude as opposed to the notion of authoritative position or rank. Romans 14:4 makes it clear that Christ is the only authority in the life of the individual, does it not? The seven deacons appointed in the First Church were clearly assignment based positions. There is no reason to believe that the assignment extended beyond the need for their appointment. Because one is singled out for a task is no reason to believe that that person has been given rank.
jd
