Clarity in Our Message

I recently presented a series of lessons on church leadership at the 2026 African Bible Summit hosted by Central Africa Christian College in Harare, Zimbabwe, and sponsored by the Christian Restoration Association. Over the past decade, division has occurred across the sub-Saharan Restoration Movement Churches regarding many conservative and liberal positions on Scripture. Some of the topics with which they grapple have also been issues discussed with varying levels of intensity in many churches in America.

One topic that presented itself during the Summit was the use of the terms ‘apostles’ and ‘prophets’ pertaining to Ephesians 4:11. The question for these churches is whether these terms can continue to be rightly used as titles in the church today. For context, I offer the following definitions from a popular online source:

An apóstolos (from apostéllō, “to commission, send forth”) — properly, someone sent (commissioned), focusing back on the authority (commissioning) of the sender (note the prefix, apo); apostle.[1]

A prophet (prophḗtēs) declares the mind (message) of God, which sometimes predicts the future (foretelling), and more commonly, speaks forth His message for a particular situation. prophḗtēs (“a prophet”) then is someone inspired by God to foretell or tell forth (forthtell) the Word of God.[2]

In a question-and-answer session at the Summit, many from the “liberal position” did not oppose using these terms for current roles in church leadership.[3] Using the above definitions, anyone sent would qualify as an apostle, and anyone who preaches the counsel of God—even preaching from the Bible and not claiming to have received a new revelation from God—might take the title of prophet. The Restoration Movement slogan, “in opinions liberty…” comes to mind as possible reasoning for their position. However, in a scenario like this, how far does liberty extend?

We do something similar in the American Restoration Movement Churches. We often find ourselves taking baptism and explaining it by its definition as immerse, dip, or plunge—sometimes going as far as referring to Jesus’s cousin by the less popular moniker John the Immerser rather than John the Baptist. We are diligent in referring to the offices of the evangelist and the elders correctly. We also work to distinguish between deacons in a limited but authority-given capacity, as outlined in 1 Timothy 3, from every Christian who should be serving in some capacity.[4] What is the difference? Clarity!

One session of the African Bible Summit set forth the idea that God is a God of order. He has given us a clear expression of His desires and commands in Scripture from beginning to end. As the church, we must continually ask the question, “How do we make the clearest expression of Christianity possible in all that we do?” Perhaps more importantly, “Toward whom are we directing our expression?” We may answer this in three ways: 1) toward God in worship, 2) toward the lost in evangelism, and 3) toward ourselves and other Christians in edification as we continue to ground ourselves in the Word.

We have a guiding principle in the Restoration Movement slogan that directs us to call Bible things by Bible names. This, too, with a view toward clarity. Clarity must be the guiding principle behind any of our Restoration Movement slogans; else, we weaponize them. In the broadest sense, can “apostle” and “prophet” continue to be used? Some have argued the point. However, after considering the two possible positions: 1) these are biblical offices, and 2) these are defined terms that might loosely apply, we must ask whether clarity is promoted in continuing to apply these terms in current times. I would say no.

As the Summit concluded, the inherent risks associated with the continued use of the definitional terms prophet and apostle when the biblical offices of prophet and apostle ceased were highlighted. The biblical prophets and apostles were specifically called by God. Using the terms of prophet or apostle outside of those in biblical times—especially when these biblical offices have fulfilled their historical purpose—serves no specific need or clarifying purpose.[5]

Though this specific issue may not be a problem in the American Restoration Churches, may we always strive for clarity in our communication of the Scriptures?

The outcome of the African Bible Summit was that both sides of the division came together for biblical learning. A common ground was established for discussion, where the re-establishment of unity might be worked toward as long as both sides remain willing to engage one another in both fruitful and respectful dialogue. It would be highly appreciated if everyone reading this would remember these churches in prayer.