Not sure what you mean by your question John. Has this concept been taken out of the United Church? We still often talk about the priesthood of all believers at my Baptist church.

Nothing happened to it. It's what we believe. Why do you ask?

Hi John Wilson,

On the surface not much.  It is still something that a great deal of Protestant Christianity lift up as being important.  It runs into some difficulty when the Church falls iunder the influence of institutionalism.

Under institutionalism turf is protected and so the priesthood of all believers acknowledges that every member of the congregation should be engaged in ministry although it does reserve certain priviledge for "educated" clergy.

That looks slightly different from congregation to congregation but there is still protectionism in operation hiding behind the mask of tradition.

Culturally, the priesthood of believers owes more to a culture of service and regrettably such culture is diminishing in the west where cultures of self (the me generation and the entitlement generation) cheerfully contract out service in order that they be served.

So as the me and entitlement cultures grow stronger the culture of service and the priesthood of all believers grows weaker.  That combined with institutional protectionsim makes the whole notion of the priesthood of all believers more of a fond ambition than an accepted reality.

Clearly the priesthood of all believers still needs some work.

Grace and peace to you.

John

Just idle curosity, I guess...hadn/t seen it mentioned here in the Cafe and wondered

if it was merely an anti-catholic presumption or was a stil a valid teaching.

So thanks for taking a chip off of my obvious ignorance. (A small chip, I have a lot left...

revjohn points out, correctly, that we do not fully live up to the principles behind the priesthood of all believers. That's too often the case. What, however, is the priesthood of all believers?

If one sees priesthood in the strict context of overall Christian ministry (ie, preaching, service, etc.) then he's probably right, in that we have chosen as an institution to restrict certain "responsibilities" to a particular group of Christians. Thus, to preside at sacraments, one must be ordained or licensed. However, even in the Old Testament, "service" wasn't restricted to priests. Prophets, for example, spoke for God, but weren't part of the priesthood. They're separate offices. Even within the CHristian understanding of the priesthood of all believers, Luther acknowledged the call of some Christians (a part of the "priesthood") to particular functions. Thus, from "On The Babylonian Captivity Of The Church": "There are indeed priests whom we call ministers. They are chosen from among us, and ... do everything in our name." Thus, to "minister" (and I believe Luther is thinking here of the calling of clergy to a specific office) is one of the potential callings of a priest, according to Luther, but not the calling of all priests.

In general, as I interpret the priesthood of all believers, I go back to the most basic function of the priest: to serve a representative function: to represent the people before God and to represent God before the people. Thus, only the priests make sacrifices, for example. Protestant clergy (certainly United Church clergy) do not perform that representative function. Indeed, we would argue that the representative function isn't necessary any longer, because Christ represents us before God. Thus, we are all "priests" (the priesthood of all believers) in that we need no mediator between ourselves and God, save for Christ, who has given us access to God. 

I think that the current problem with the understanding of the "priesthood of all believers" and why it seems to have faded into the background has to do mostly with the growing feeling that we don't even need a mediator between ourselves and God. Thus, Christ himself (the high priest, according to Hebrews; the one with a direct access to God that goes beyond even the role of the "priests") becomes somewhat irrelevant to a lot of thinking. If one does not need a high priest, one does not need a priesthood; if one does not need a priesthood, then even the priesthood of all believers becomes moot.

I don't especially blame institutionalism for this, although I do keep in mind that Luther's basic argument in formulating his idea of the priesthood of all believers was a reaction to institutionalism. Rather than the problem (in this regard anyway) being institutionalism, though, I would agree with revjohn's second point that it is a factor of the "me" generation, reflected in a church which often doesn't even see Christ as especially necessary, beyond perhaps being an ethical/moral example.

"All believers"

Is that people that will believe everything presented to them by appropriate authority without question?

In a mortal priest does that demand: teaching what we know and leaving the line open to question as we get to the far parts? Now as I've often said ... I wast old certain things just were ... without question ... going appropriately against NT authority that may not be the ante (NT, or NÐ) to it all ... as we 'Nch' our way through the sloe turning scions ... they change incessantly through history to keep the opprssed peoples down ... subtle 'ike or is that IHC ... that inside spatial dimension? A place of small thought waiting to escape ...

Some call this the Holy Land of Martyr dumb, Maacabees, or other suicidal peoples who poke their head up in a land of dispute ... very argumentative to say little ... a humble position at last when your nothing but a spot in the mire ... Nosh-ite ...

Alas these things are fecund ... like a thought on the walkabout ... down-under explicit ... thoughts bug me ... but many seem to be able to ignore eM without taking a stick to turn over such chit ... outside thoughts are often found flat out on a whitewashed dimension ... data's de Lamb!

Could you erect something from such profundity? Like a Holy Lamb, or sheeps kin with abstractions that are dark ... "In the beginning ..." and so on it goes ... a literal faux pas? That'd be a failure in thought as one that escaped into the physical fabrication ... from metaphysical realms!

Oh the things that people won't even question before they sever Tiyes ... like Pan Tiyes in a Rush where intelligence is exchanged unconsciously ...

Hi Rev. Steven Davis,

Appropriate starting point.

The priesthood of believers is a doctrine from the Reformation meant to liberate the Church from a heirarchical priesthood.  This had two tangible components which Protestants may have forgotten or so taken for granted that they no longer have the power to speak to believers.

First and foremost the priesthood of believers ensures that no human mediator (save for the man Christ Jesus) is necessary for us to come to God.  As priests we may go to God, through Christ, directly.

Last but not least is the idea that we do not simply become priest for ourselves but rather we become priests to one another.  Ministry becomes a practice of mutuality where the minister is at times active to a passive congregation and at other times the congregation is actively ministering to a passive clergy.  That mutuality of service exists among the laity as they minister one to another.

I agree that most in the Protestant traditions understand that they have direct access to God and do not require a human mediator to open doors to God for them.

I think that there are some instances where the mutuality of ministry is in effect.  For the most part I think that ministry, specifically those attached to paid, accountable clergy, has become more of a service industry and the most common complaint about ministry in most congregations is, "We pay you to do that!" rather than "when can we do that?"

The element of offices, which was intended to identify particular ministries with particular gifts, for some reason was felt to be too exclusive to be representative of the Holy Spirit which suggests a very weak understanding of how the Holy Spirit calls and equips individuals for service.

Indeed.  

Grace and peace to you.

John

Agreed.

As I grow older (hitting the half century mark in 2 and a half months) and gain the wisdom that comes with age and grey hair (!) and now almost 20 years of ordination I am increasingly of the opinion that the "professionalization" of clergy has harmed the church far more than it has helped the church.

To me, this is particularly noticeable in the area of pastoral care. Although there have been some commendable strides made in recent years in bringing back the idea that pastoral care is a shared reponsibility between the clergy and the laity, there is still the sense I get from some congregations at least that rather than "calling" a minister to serve they are "hiring" a minister to take care of them. The United Church helped create this confusion back (I Believe) in the late 60's or early 70's when the understanding of ordination was changed. To that point, people were ordained to a ministry of word and sacrament. At least in theory, the focus was on spiritual leadership and the gifts that would be needed for someone to be a spiritual leader. Then it was changed to a ministry of word, sacrament AND pastoral care, and increasingly pastoral care came to be seen as the focus of the clergy. "We want someone who will visit - and visit and visit and visit." Clergy came to be seen as "counsellors" rather than as those who would walk with a congregation spiritually, and help them to see God and discern God's call in the various stages of life.

The end result is that "service industry" mentality you speak of.

And who do we serve? Well a singular godin monotheism ... so we don't have to serve whats' beyond us ... we developed unthinking or forgetfullness to a fine edge ...

It can however cut both ways ... odd thing a word ... when let Luçe ... Luçei fearing words? No the chi devil called psyche will collect all the light chi can to dig her out of the well chi'zin ... does this approximate the 3rd Gospel ... Lu Ca's as a sublime spirit of buried intellect? The Romans hated a devilish thinker ... something Rome and Jude awe fell fore ... you see physical power isn't everything ... there is always the metaphysical out there ... pondering ... catacombs and those uther underground mazes!

There are those that say we are like god's myth expanded ... hammered out as a dark heart in the Shadow's ... lighter daze to come? Ever been struct by a bull, papal bull as awkward Çow ... like a swirling dimple in space ... consuming everything ... the pits of heaven of just a dark hole like icons on the page boy ... sort of like Oster IHC humour about the san and what hiddden there ... on must research san and pas Zea ... it is a flood ignored stuff! Do you understand Osters? Them's the horsemen of the apocalyse ... just dancing to run away with your discarded thoughts ... po'eM Isis ole ...

Few even know the origins of 'ole' and how it is related to the ancient complex Babblonian "i" and ole' the Taurus goes on ... as the red Eyre observes you ... 

The idea is quite central in UU'ism. Of course, it isn't really a "priesthood" of all believers anymore since modern UUs have divergent views on God and even those who are theists don't really believe in having a priesthood (that I've heard of). Anyone can lead rituals, anyone can preach (we use lay leadership for probably a third or perhaps more of our services), anyone can perform rites of passage (with the proviso that a government license is required to perform valid marriages of course), and so on.

We have a minister because they are the "experts" with training and knowledge specific to the job. Much of their work involves counselling and training others to provide the actual ministry and providing a spiritually-focussed leader in the congregation (as opposed to the lay leadership of the board that deals with more temporal matters like property maintenance and money). We have a care team, trained and backed by the ministry, for doing visitation and pastoral care in concert with him. Worship is prepared and managed by a similar team. Our lay chaplains are fully trained and qualified to do weddings, funerals, etc., again with the support of the minister.

In short, they are not a priest standing between us and the Ultimate, but a support as we each find our own path to the Ultimate (whatever that may be for each of us). 

Of course, that is in a congregation with professional ministry. Some still do not, preferring to be lay-led or lacking the resources for full-time ministry. There are at least two of these and probably more in Ontario, and probably others in other parts of the country.

Mendalla

 Hi Rev - Steven Davis -- You posted to Rev John

someone who will visit - and visit and visit and visit. Clergy came to be seen as "counsellors" rather than as those who would walk with a congregation spiritually, and help them to see God and discern God's call in the various stages of life.

_____________________________________

Airclean ---I just  wanted to say it is refreshing to read two Ministers of GOD speaking so open. I also believe your  both on the right  path . I believe as a Minister  or Priest of GOD ,you belong to GOD . The Holy Spirit which is GODS is your leader. Those in church are your Brothers and Sisters. All are walking to GOD . I believe your job is to help them stay that path.To guide" and  councel"  as you both walk in The Way. I believe The Powers of GOD  are given to all His Children  So all are of The PriestHood  who follow Christ Jesus who is The High PRIEST   of  The order of  Melchizedek--- . The Offices though are apointed by GOD and through Him, as He wills. ----1 Peter2:  9-10------Eph-5: 23-32-------Hebrews 7:-17-----Luke --20: 35-36.

May GOD BLESS BOTH  of you. ---P-S-- I did not miss you in that that BLESSING John  Wilsonairclean33 -Gord

Hi Rev. Steven Davis

I am not sure that the "professionalization" of clergy on its own was capable of harming the church.

I am of a mind to point the finger at the diminishment of the lay offices.  

The office of Elder, for example has all but disappeared from congregations of The United Church of Canada.  Traditionally it was the Eldership which handled the ministry of visitation and it was the near extinction of this office which all but guaranteed that clergy would be professionalized simply because the Lay leadership became functionally invisible.

While the Designated Lay Minister is a recent phenomenon (title wise) it is almost the only Lay office left.  Of course the denomination appears hell-bent on turning this "lay" office into an ordered/commissioned ministry equivalent.

I hear you.

Respectfully counsellors are not actually what is wanted.  Social visitors are.  

I suspect clergy are seen as family surrogates.  As families are now spread-out geopraphically there is a greater need for someone to keep mom and dad from feeling so lonely in their retirement and declining condition.  The kids don't have time to visit what with carting all the grandkids about.

Most of the visits I am doing are social with some time spent in prayer.  Most of it seems to be tell me how your kids and grandkids are doing.  I don't think that constitutes counselling.

This has a definite impact on how friendly a congregation actually is.  If the clergy are the only ones building relationships across the congregation then there is probably little actual socialization happening on a Sunday morning.

Grace and peace to you.

John

In my settlement charge I learned fairly quilckly that some of the people I was visiting were, simply, lonely.  THat was my Pastoral diagnosis (to use a phrase I have not used since 1st year of seminary).  SO I pointedly asked the Board chair if it was seen as my role to meet their needs for social contact.  Her response was an automatic YES.

However one of those individuals had been a church Elder in his younger years.  ANd at least once a year he would say something like "it is great to visit with you but the church never visits us".  You can believe I passed that on (to mixed responses).

I am, but I don't mind your disagreement!

Absolutely no argument on that from me.

Indeed, I'd almost be willing to take bets on how long it's going to be before Congregational Designated Ministers (or, rather, those serving in Congregational Designated Ministries) start to move in that direction. We constantly devalue lay ministry by effectively saying that for it to be real ministry it has to look like ordained ministry.

I agree with you as far as the expectations of individual members of congregations are concerned. From an institutional perspective I believe "counselling" took over as the perceived raison d'etre of clergy some decades ago. Thus, the emphasis on clergy doing "pre-marriage counselling" as one example, another being the normal note in a JNAC report under "Skills" that they want someone who can provide "counselling" to those going through difficulties (or a variation on that theme) and there has only recently been the beginning of a movement away from that understanding. Frankly, I believe many clergy are "wannabe counsellors," and thus prefer to be seen as professionals rather than merely as pastors.

Yup.

Does church have difficulty with social form then? This appears to me to be probably when anti-social behaviour is way up there on the etude of assertiveness ...

Don't fall for it ...

Professionalism lends a flavour of power an power a sense of corruption. For instance I was told this strange thing many times ( Happy John won't like this as he didn't hear it): "I went to university and learned everything I had to know ... end of statment ... I don't need to learn anything else!"

Dooes such a statement put chills up you spine when coming from an exegete? Did you know an exegete is supposed to be a leader ... but often they don't lead from within the circumstances ... then are not into it and don't know the pain that they create. It is like Heiseinberg'sTuff being hung out there in Ur space ... as Jude-að ... things hung in space of the tree. There of course variants of such spectres ... mire esse enne C's of the abstract ... that Shadow under the tree.

Always think ourside the box but feel from the dephs, with crossing this is spelled depths .. and is a profound understanding that many churches and ministries reject because of baseline statements in the beginninf of faith ... jinni Sis? Without a Shadow of doubt ... some experience in the way (street smarts) is required to know much about what's outside your desires ...

I hope this is vague enough so you have to ponder it to understand ... if not you'll think I'm out-of-it ... partly virtual ... notall!

Hi WaterBuoy,

Sadly, not as much as it should.

I suspect that for all the talk about the Kingdom of God most Churches are happy with the Christendom model of keeping the Kingdom of the World but painting over it in Chirstian colours.

We attempt to squeeze a coming Kingdom into a current form without discerning how wise or prudent such action really is.

When one accepts that the Kingdom of God is itself a service model and invests no time in discerning this particular service model from others then it is not surprising that the most comfortable service model gets the nod.

It is easier not to have to run counter to the pervailing culture.

I don't find the statement strange.  I find it sad.  As if the world, indeed existence, is only as wide as a particular faculty.

At one time maybe.  Such limitations show and I find myself, when stuck listening to them, trying to carbon date the ideas and running up the evolutionary thought tree that has been growing since.

An exegete is supposed to be a leader.  To be honest I think that the leadership exists almost as a given even when the exegete morphs into an eisegete.  They still lead but from such a narrow place that few can follow.  I suspect the problem is not pain created but rather pain dulled.

Pain felt gets attention and hopefully treatment to alleviate suffering.  Pain not felt gets no attention until damage is irreversible and it becomes an ongoing problem.

If one is always thinking outside the box one may never know what is going on inside of the box and with all due respect to Shrodinger's cat and evaporating possibilities we can't move forward until we know what is going on in any particular box.

Espectially if one of those boxes carried within community bears a weight beyond the owner's ability to bear.

Agreed.  Balance is called for.  The value of higher education was never that it taught you all that you would ever need to know.  It was supposed to teach you how to think.  I suppose there is an app for thinking now and that it will be something else we hand over to the technologies which surround us.

I hope it isn't otherwise there is no conversation just competing soliloquy

Grace and peace to you.

John

Hey John it is why I often talk to myself ... what some chilly slips (Freudian) would call talking to got ... a  non-serving service to satisfy those that didn't wish to know unless thay had to dig into it!

Such leads to the chimerii sense of quantum science that's all over the place ... one learns beta of who they are in that stretch of horizons and face the fact that some cannot be served with any intelligence ... thus heiros gammos ... communicating with the dark side, sublime soul, or that of more humble creatures ... like a wee God? Leads on to the God Particle thing and why wwe are severed from such space ... because we don't appreciate all-that-is ... metaphor to God but some don't see that far ...

On to Irrefutavle entities ...

Happy John, a lively chit, referred to irrefutable things a while back. I looked around a bit for a' Muse meant to be in this ... and there it was out-there ... stretched thin as the intellect of hal'va god ... all of God would include the thinking deis-mon ... and appears we're beyond that!

Since we don't like metaphors, myths, pseudo-mons, and cynical constructs I'd rift off in the extensive abstract worls of word and what is unconscious to us ... just imagine the abstracts one could define ... just for Happy John in that far out quantum chimmerii state ... Ju Dean hangup in one interpretation of the story of the gathering of thoughts from ancient scions ... sometimes written Zion-ism without due care about what words are being thrown out ... because they mean nut'n to some authority.

This is not always the case or sometime how it isn't ... something to be the scull 'n place around ... the Shadow of ge Semin' or Je Semite ... depending on the system of whether it is icon-based, pictoral, alphabetic, mental or phonetic it is hybred and overlapped in the brain as the right and left portions work better than your right and left hands do together ... perhaps because one half is always off and gatehring clues ... a virtual abstraction? Such is the word in black ... but greedy leaders don't like us to know this for we might exceed them ... and they don't know the dephs ... the deaf and dumb words that you can lift something from no matter how you look at it ... or perhaps not at all then you will become a body of desire ... completely numbed by such alien intelligence ... alien because you just ddn't know enough?

Leaves everything to question on this side of reality far away from the virtuous support system of space ... just hanging there like a dark power ... no one understands it or what comes out of it! We didn't wish to know is the word ... something to plae with ... or otherwise mental abstraction ... if you could gather such things ...

Ire Refute-able…

An interesting word, with a great sense of stubbornness tuit. In the go round, I did considerable research in Lexicons, small books of the devil, as Roman type did not like understanding and thinking people (men in generally de sect ‘d mode, not severed). Some people feel they must do as the Romans when in state of romanticism … believing only in what you desire. It is said that if you desire something powerfully it will happen no matter what … for you will beg, borrow, steal, rape or murder to get it … how the sublime devil gathers thoughts as god had none to give Ur. Now is Ur place in the abstract past … sort of lost in the Shadow? Some say it is nothing … like myth and mind! Is it anything without gathered words? Who said that time is a machine like mind?

For the sake of synchronicity (quantum; chimerii, sometimes chimera, eclectic) in cyberspace, I also consulted some other sources of thought. In one case irrefutable was described as not contestable, determinate. Etc. and one author added: “because that’s the way I like it” which includes the sense of desire with reason. Is this an improbable mix except in the condition of the average human brain as it is in cased in the bones of myth … it resists outside logic as a bone-headed device? What better example of determinate to learn from … although learning is not well accepted by satisfied minds that believe they know everything (God in short) leaving god as humble. One has to think outside the box, that the scroll un winds from, or other form of flowing intellect like book, or bo’que, which is a mire chaotic “Q” sometimes confused with pede-G because of a cool shift of hand called Freudian. Is a gift of chance to upset determinates … Complex Nos. or populations that are unreal individuals? We are entering the field of neural integration!

Such is fate as they’d rift out of here … thus becoming indeterminate! This is like what the Egyptians designated “Ra” or “Rie” that eventually became an “AI” thought. And you know what “I thought” does in a crowd, or social gathering … nosh-ite? Virtually anon fertile mental process … otherwise known as myth … something you never know before experiencing the wiz-led old thing, that is sometimes know as rye humur as it is no longer whetted, and is served instead of service related … unless you expect to extract some mellowed intellect. Couldn’t have that could we … would interfere with desires and the entire medium would collapse as if hung there in space as Jude or JuΓe, that comes back at you like joc, or nut case during Succoth, that 7 daze period when you better leave well enough alone! This is sometimes called fear of passion, but in alternate form is wis-dumb, struck by what is separated at the time. Drink some whine but consume not strong esse enne as, you will become arid, and there’ll be nothing left but teeth, Eire and AI Ba’aLs! These the sphere’s that will ring you into ηus dimensions and all you’ll do is think as pure intelligence, you are now dead to feelings.

Did you ever read James Norman on the irrefutable concept that writing preserves the essence of the mind? This is expressing “what’s not there” as the plastic brain of man is not there … it is off chasing a dream … and thus the explicit expression of beautiful dream-Eire as the emotions are served by “what isn’t” thought! Thus it must be hung in sublime space which is humbly not heard from in the sense of irrefutable ƒ(x) that could be the archtype we’re in if you know your scions that have sprung off what we didn’t desire and thus become their opposite … mire thought that some consider a dirty pool, or what Naman bathed in … a lot of words as his nominal attachment (label?) means wisdom that could be attached to Sophy if she so chose. This is unlikely as “same” things repel and this attachment could lead to collapse of the human dimension … which could also happen because of the ethereal nature of wisdom at present. Thus we would all become abstracts in the imaginary Job of creating something beta as an irrefutable need, the way I see it while looking in the dark shadowy future. Many would desire me not to go there, as according to Jeremiah real people don’t like criticism, only the opposing personality which is beyond us as intelligent we worshipping what we please and thus forget everything else, the other half so to speak! Good ηus‘s grand satyr; devilish organ?

Is that divine severance of what is refutable and what is a donkey looking in wadis (dry gulch for a thorn bush) … sort of reminds me of the Ballad of Barbara Allen, and the thorn poked hole in the fabric making space for light from outside … an alien entity for those caught with their hands in Isaac without conjunctive relations of agreement from the Eyre forms that may be looking at the ascenð of time … so something could be derived from the Runes … and old form of communications … which many determined people say you shouldn’t know as it expands your intellectual horizons to nut’n!

It is said that God is the word? Then what comes and goes from the primal abstractions? That'd be dark ... Gnoe ...

Did you know that is the science of neuroplasticity there is a branch called gnoetics, probably so dulled people would do anything when tampering with a sloppy brain ... something uncultured ... but perhaps a metaphor of the primal swampie ... swamie ... this could go on and on ...