adverse possession of ministerial authority

[Scott]

There have been numerous conversations about what, if anything, authorizes ministers to take office and perform ministerial functions. Some have suggested that congregational approval is sufficient. Others have suggested that ministerial succession is ordinarily the only lawful and valid means of authority. There have been othher alternatives suggested.

Whatever the answer, could there be a principle that time and usage (i.e. performing ministerial functions for a period of time) confer authority even if a minister's initial vesting of authority is improper?

I will give a couple of analogies at law. One is adverse possession of property. If someone who does not own property takes it for himself (unlawfully) and possesses it and openly declares that it is his for a specified period of time (20 years or so, depending on what state you are in), the property will become his through a doctrine of adverse possession.

Another analogy would be common law marriage. If a couple lives together without getting lawfully married, after a period of time common law (a year or more, depending on what state they are in) will recognize the couple as being married if they also meet certain circumstances (eg. representing themselves as man and wife).

Could there be any similar principles at operation in terms of ministerial authority? For example, say a denomination starts with its ministers not having proper authority. Would it gain the power to ordain after years of its ministers performing ministerial functions?

I have never heard of anything like this in an ecclesial context, but wondered what others think.

Perhaps some precedent could be made from the scribes and pharisees. Christ said that they "sat in Moses' seat," even though there does not seem to be any biblical authorization for them doing so.

I believe that also the high priesthood at some point was reinstated in a way that did not conform to biblical precedent. Yet, by Jesus' time the priesthood, including the high priesthood, was recognized at legitimate.

Thoughts?

Scott

[Edited on 6-19-2006 by Scott]

 

[C. Matthew McMahon]

Regardless of how long one "claims it", as Charles Bridges said, "No one can make a minister of the Gospel except Jesus Christ."

That being said, the divine right of Christ is something that should be studied. If everyone had "the authority of the keys" then there would be no one to exercise that authority over - everyone would possess them, and authority or government (i.e. coercion) would be a moot point.

I find those other ecclesiastical options to be quite senseless as a result.

 

[Scott]

The idea would be that God employees custom and usage as a secondary means to appoint ministers, as He did with the priests, scribes and pharisees of Jesus' day, who sat in Moses' seat, even though there was not divine appointment to do so (other than custom and usage).

[Edited on 6-20-2006 by Scott]