There’s been a lot of talk about “apostolic covering” lately. I give a good deal of air-play to this idea (along with the general idea of “covering” and bogus applications of submission and authority) in my book, Reimagining Church. There’s an entire section in the book dedicated to exploring the “covering” teaching in great detail along with a fresh model for leadership and accountability.
If you’ve not yet read the book, I’m not a fan of any form of “covering,” that includes so-called “apostolic covering.”
The appendix, entitled “Reimagining the Five-Fold Ministry,” was removed from the book during the final round of edits. The reason: The book was too long at that point, and we couldn’t fit it in. (The book is just under 320 pages long.) But in one of the chapters, there’s a link to the removed appendix. It’s called “Rethinking the Five-Fold Ministry.”
I hope it contributes constructively to the present discussion.
Do I understand you correctly, that you do not believe everyone is primarily called to one of the five ministries in Eph. 4?
You’ll want to read the linked piece: “Rethinking the Five-Fold Ministry” for a full answer.
Paul was clear in 1 Cor. 12 that not all are prophets, not all are apostles, not all are teachers, etc. There are actually 22 gifts listed in the NT. Thankfully, the members of the body have different giftings. And thank God, not all are called to be prophets or apostles. The price tag on those two is the highest. For that reason, authentic prophets and apostles don’t want the job … if it were up to them that is. There is one body, but many ministries, gifts, and callings.
I wasn’t clear enough. I think it’s clear that ‘not all are prophets’, that we have different parts to play, also from Ef4.
But what I’m wondering is if it’s a correct interpretation to add together all the listing of gifts (ie. 22 gifts in all) and see them as one list. It seems to me that Ef could be of higher importance given that it appears to have been a letter sent to many congregations at the time, compared to Cor being just for the Corinthians and their special set of problems and challenges. Any thoughts on that?
I wouldn’t use the term “higher importance” as Paul tells us in 1 Cor. 12 that all the functions of the body are necessary to the fullness of Christ. Even the “unseemly parts.” The Ephesians 4 gifts are functions that are designed for equipping the saints. The mistake has been, as I pointed out in the article via history and the NT, is that some movements have exalted these particular functions and turned them into a top-down hierarchy of sorts. Paul also mentions some of these same giftings in 1 Cor. 12. Another point I was making is that these gifts look VERY different in an organic expression of the church than they do in a typical institutional church, especially the charismatic type. I’ve been in both and seen both, and the difference is amazing.
Frank, I have to thank you for this. When I first posted a couple of years ago, I was amazed at the origins of these doctrinal beliefs, and how they continue to get recycled as if it’s the hidden key to why the system isn’t working. Too bad it didn’t end up in the book.