Nevertheless, Jesus did not shy away from the topic, and He let us know that there are indeed leaders among us. First and foremost, not just "in Heaven", but right here with us, is the Chief Shepherd of the sheep, Lord of the Church, Who said, "All authority has been given to Me..."

That settles that! All authority given to Jesus. He rules. Period. Then He went on to say, "Therefore, you go, you preach, you baptize, you teach." Since Jesus is in charge, we go, in His authority.

Now, right before that final word, the apostle John lets us in on a private conversation between Peter and Jesus. It was this little glimpse that gave the Medieval Church the idea that not only Peter, but some imagined "line" following Peter, would be the true rulers of the church. You remember the incident?

Peter, do you love Me? Sure I love You. Then feed My lambs. Do you love Me? Of course I love You! Feed my sheep. Do you really love Me? Master, You know everything. Surely You must know I love You. Three denials at the arrest. Now three affirmations, as Jesus arrests Peter.

We don't have to say the opposite of Rome in every word they speak. Remember that a goodly portion of Roman teaching is straight out of your Bible. It's the other part we must oppose. There can be no explanation of this passage that denies Peter the leading role in that Jerusalem church. Yes, James was the "administrator", yes Paul was free to oppose him. It was not military autocratic rule. But it was true leadership. Peter's always in a leading position when you see him in the Book of Acts. Eventually his leading position led him to go to the cross as his Master had done. True servanthood.

Of course it must be noted, that without consulting the church of Jerusalem, "Peter's flock," Jesus called another apostle, Paul, who established a whole new order of congregations among the Gentiles, independent of Jerusalem, governed by well-chosen elders full of the Holy Spirit.

That the other apostles shared in Peter's leadership is witnessed throughout Acts, and the histories that trace each of them to a violent death. Jesus had so indicated by filling them with the Spirit even before Pentecost and giving them a charge.

So they led, they fed, they died. Their witness of the resurrection was sealed. They laid the foundation , their words were recorded and passed on. Done. Course finished.

Where we differ with Rome and all latter-day "apostles" is in the need for such apostolic work to continue. Who succeeded Peter? No one. Where was the "headquarters" for many years? That question has been contested in every age, and never settled. Most historians tell us there were at least five "centers" of the church until the growing political structure of the Roman Church forced others into submission as their predecessors in Imperial Rome had subjugated the old Empire. The church had fallen into the trap Jesus warned about. The professing visible church was no better than "the nations." The salt had lost its savour. The world was plunged into darkness.

In every generation of that Darkened church, bloody struggles decided who was the "successor" of Peter. Today, in a world decidedly democratic in its ways, Rome "votes" for the leadership of God. But whether by sword or by ballot box, it is a fleshly line of succession that has fooled the world and good portions of the church for centuries.

Nevertheless God's true church prospers. For He has a people and He provides them with leaders whenever they call upon His Name. Elders are moved into place, and the true ones give their lives to protect and feed their flocks. And upon what do true ministers feed them? Why the words of the apostles, what else? For you see, the answer to my original question is "No one succeeded the apostles." They do not need succeeding. Their words have remained, by God's miracle, for these 1,900 years, and added to the words of the prophets, they constitute everything we could possibly need.