Apostolic Tradition: Is it Practical?

I wanted to begin with a topic that will be foundational to a number of other issues I would like to address down the road. As I will probably be using this idea as an important building block in some of my other arguments on ecclesiological questions, I think it would be good to set it forth it at the beginning. Hopefully I can get some feedback on my underlying presuppositions before I build too much upon them. If I've made some fundamental error, it would be good to know it early in the game.

What I want to talk about is apostolic tradition and its continuing authority over the church. As I see it, there are at least three kinds of apostolic tradition. The first is the doctrinal tradition, that is, the tenets of the Christian faith proclaimed by the apostles: the death and resurrection of Christ, the ministry of the Holy Spirit, the doctrine of justification by faith and the like. Evangelicals are generally zealous to to uphold this form of apostolic tradition. That is, you rarely hear conservative Christians saying such things as, "I know Paul said that Christ rose from the dead, but what should we believe today?"

A second kind of apostolic tradition is the moral instruction the apostles delivered: instructions on personal holiness, interpersonal relationships, duties of husbands, wives, children, etc. This part of apostolic tradition, as well, is still generally regarded as authoritative among conservative Christians. Though from time to time there may be debate about some of the particulars, most evangelicals would agree that apostolic moral commands are to be obeyed.

There is a third aspect of apostolic tradition, however, that appears to me to be treated by evangelicals as less authoritative than the other two forms. This is the apostolic tradition concerning the practical function and organization of the church. Debates freqeuently rage among conservative Christians as to how churches ought to conduct their services, how they ought to discipline their members, how they ought to celebrate the sacraments, how they ought to be organized and governed, and how they ought to relate to other local churches. What is more telling, however, than the existence of such debates, is the manner in which they are usually carried on. Positions on these issues are almost always argued from some pragmatic point of view. "What kind of service will help our church grow? What kind of leadership arrangement is most effective in today's society?" Rarely is it suggested that the apostles' teachings on these issues ought to be consulted, much less used as the authoritaive standard for answering such questions.

Some might say that if people don't always appeal to the apostolic tradition on these matters, it is only because they aren't addressed much in the scriptures. But this does not seem to me to be the case. Large portions of scripture, such as are found in the epistles to the Corinthians and those to Timothy and Titus, are dedicated to these very questions. Maybe I'm mistaken in my perception that these scriptures are rarely appealed to in such discussions, but if I'm not mistaken, I can only see this as indicating that evangelicals regard these portions of scripture as somehow less authoritative and less binding than those passages setting forth doctrine or moral instruction.

Over the next couple of posts, I would like to argue that the apostles' teachings on the practical function and organization of the church: teachings on the assembly, church offices, the sacraments, etc. are not just suggestions that may or may not be adopted, they are authoritative precepts to be followed by all churches in all ages. Just as the apostles' doctrinal teachings are the standard for what Christians are to believe, so, I believe, are their practical teachings the standard for how Christ's churches are to function.