The “priesthood of all believers” — what does this mean to the church you work for? To you personally?
The question was inspired by comments on another post which can be found here. More specifically, the question is: if the church teaches the concept of “the priesthood of believers”, why do most churches say laypeople cannot perform the sacraments (specifically, communion and baptism)? Are there any exceptions?
It’s my understanding (correct me if I’m wrong) the church has historically taught laypeople may perform baptism in emergency situations — for example, for a dying person when no clergy is available. That’s the only exception to the rule I can think of.
But taking communion as an example, if a layperson (assuming enough theological or pastoral training to understand and communicate what the sacrament means) is the only person available to administer communion, why must it still be blessed by an ordained minister first? If the same words are spoken and the same prayers are prayed, what’s the difference who says them?
I may play devil’s advocate with some of the answers, but my question is a sincere one. In over 40 years in the church (over 20 as an employee) I’ve never heard a really Biblical answer to this question and I’d like to know.
Thanks in advance!
me personally? It means that the church isn’t about me. It means that scripturally I’m called to live out Hebrews 10:24-25 and 1 Thessalonians 2:8-9.
You raise some interesting questions. I look at this and simple will say, in my tradition there are no sacraments. This is true for any Anabaptist group. We do practice communion, baptism and the like, but they are not understood as sacraments. And in truth, anyone can administer communion or baptize. The only thing that requires an ordained minister is wedding, but that has more to do with state laws than with church law.
Anabaptist tend to see the sacraments as symbols, so in the case of communion, the bread and the wine are not seen as bing literally the body and the blood. There is no intrinsic grace in the elements. And with baptism, it may make you a member of the church, but it does not make you a believer. We come from a believers baptism tradition, where you have already confessed faith in Christ Jesus and are there for already a believer, saved, and baptism then serves as a outward sign of what has already happened in the interior.
For sacramental traditions this changes because they understand communion in the sense of a infused grace, these elements the bread and the cup are no longer what they seem to be. As such, they need to be handled with great care and respect.
Myself, as an Anabaptist, I don’t think that the symbolic understanding is sufficient, these acts do function as a means of grace. I hope this helps.
Peace,
Kevin
Hi Kevin,
Thanks very much for your thoughtful reply. I found myself nodding all through your post and thinking “yeah I believe that”, “yeah I believe that too”… maybe I’m not so far from being anabaptist!
Communion is something that has held my full attention since I was around three. I agree with you — it is a means of grace, a very powerful and spiritual thing, whether it’s seen as symbolic or otherwise. I’ve been told the word “sacrament” means “an outward or physical representation of an inward or spiritual reality” and that seems to fit well.
I think where some churches get the wrong end of the stick is in thinking communion has some kind of power in it to get an unbeliever into heaven — nothing like that is taught in the Bible! Scripture teaches it’s a family meal for those who already believe, a way to remember Him, a way to think about what it means to take Him into ourselves (the Spirit indwelling) and what it means to be the church (as there are many pieces of one loaf, so many people make one church).
And I tend to agree with your church — I see no reason why this teaching, and the sacrament itself, should be limited to only ordained clergy. (At the same time I’m aware back during the Reformation many folks lost their lives as heretics for saying stuff like this!)
I think that to accurately answer this we must understand not as much what a priest is today, but what a priest was in the Scripture. When we do this, we realize that the ‘priesthood of believers’ does not really relate to performing baptism or the sacraments (which are symbols rather than a means of receiving grace, which comes only through the finished sacrifice of Jesus Christ), but to our relationship with God.
Under the OT (pre-Christ) system, the priest was the only way through which a person could come to God. They had to bring a sacrifice, either for covering their sin or for worship of God, which was given to the priest to present to God through the burning of it on the altar, sprinkling of the blood, etc. Then, once a year, the high priest would bring the blood of a sacrifice into the holy-of-holies, where the very presence of God resided hidden behind the veil, to cover the nation’s sins.
When Jesus offered Himself as the once for all sacrifice for our sins, the veil of the temple was torn in two signifying that we could now enter God’s presence through the sacrifice of Jesus, the Messiah. Through the death of our Great High Priest, He has opened the way for us to approach God an made us to be a kingdom of priests before God (Rev 1:6). No longer do we need to have someone to approach God on our behalf, but we can approach God’s throne with boldness and confidence (Heb 4:16), not because of any good that we have in us, but because of the work of Jesus (See also Heb 10:19-24).
What you all have said here makes a lot of sense to me, and I’m giving it serious thought. In the meantime I’d like to hear from some voices on the “other side of the aisle” (if any of you lurkers would care to step forward
).
Also in the meantime, for those who have already posted — or for readers who agree with them — here’s a follow-up question. I’m reading the history of the late middle ages right now. It seems to me back in the day (when the “priesthood of believers” doctrine finally gained some traction) that the theologians who supported the concept of the priesthood of believers also supported predestination. Do you think that’s true? Do you see a link between the two doctrines?
TIA for your answers.
Peg,
I think the real answer is that we don’t really believe in the priesthood of all believers. We only pay lip service to the idea.
Can you imagine what would happen if we really believed this doctrine and put it into practice? It might look just a little bit like the early Church.
Rod
Rod,
I think that you are essentially correct on this point. We do not believe in a priesthood of all believers, I’m not sure we even give it lip service most days.
Dan picked up the point of control. He didn’t say it explicitly, but it is implied in the system by which access to God was controlled the system in the temple, and today you can see that in the control of the sacraments more so in some branches of the family.
But when you take away the “controls” you allow anyone to do as they wish. You see some of this in the missional movement, and it is generating a lot of concern by older established groups in the church. There was a great freedom in the early church, few councils, committees and the like to run things. It might be a little messy but a lot more vitality.
Peace,
Kevin
Hmmmmmm. Looks like I’m going to have to be the one to play devil’s advocate.
Don’t know if I know what’s on the other side of the fence exactly, we’ll see…
I’m discounting right off the top the churches that teach transubstantiation, because I understand where they’re coming from. If you’re going to have a sacrifice, if the bread and wine actually physically become the body and blood, you need to have a priest do it. There’s no other way to be sure it’s being done correctly and with the proper authority. I disagree with the theology but I get it.
In the “Reformed” traditions — Presbyterians, Methodists, et al — communion is a representation only. The only reason I can see for involvement of ordained clergy is to try to be sure everyone in the congregation knows the seriousness of what they’re about to do… that to eat and drink the elements in an unworthy manner is to bring judgement on oneself. Think of it as a spiritual safety net for the communicants’ sake.
In my tradition (Anglican/Episcopalian) we’re taught “consubstantiation”… some kind of middle-road thing that few can actually put into words but which I understand to mean Christ is really present in the sacrament, in a spiritual but not physical sense. It’s something that requires understanding and therefore shouldn’t be left to…. ummm… newbies, for lack of a better term. However I see no reason why someone who has been educated in the meaning of the sacrament and in how to work with the liturgy shouldn’t be able to pray over and serve the meal. I’ve been told it has to do with church tradition and apostolic succession but I don’t buy that argument, it’s too anti-Protestant.
I do think in most cases it’s a matter of spiritual safeguards… of keeping holy things holy… at least that’s the intent.
But as you all have pointed out so well, it still doesn’t do more than pay lip service to the “priesthood of believers” concept, or encourage the flock to learn to see themselves that way. Is it possible that somehow the PoB concept has been taken out of context and misinterpreted?
“I do think in most cases it’s a matter of spiritual safeguards… of keeping holy things holy… at least that’s the intent. ”
I think that probably has alot to do with the reasoning behind limiting the administration of things like baptism and communion to clergy.
It seems that many churches teach the “priesthood of all believers” on a private basis. I believe that most protestants, realize that we don’t need to go through a priest to have access to God. That same belief doesn’t always seem to be lived out in our churches. I think much of that is due the inherent hierarchy that is necessary to maintain order in an institutional church.
I agree with you Peg. As long as someone is mature enough in their faith to understand what communion and baptism are all about they should not be prohibited from administering them to others.
[...] couple weeks ago I posted “Calling All Pastors – Need Answers To Question“. All the folks who responeded (thank you all!) came down on the side of “yes” [...]
I am a certified candidate for ordained ministry in the methodist church. After some disagreement concerning the baptism of my grandson, I was asked to baptize him in my son’s home. My Pastor refused to baptize him after church and my son would rather it be done that way due to my grandson’s circumstances. He was born with a few difficulties (nothing God can’t fix:) Anyway, I thought I may be able to do a private baptism in my son’s home. Will I get into hot water with God for this?
Hi Debbie and welcome!
My first reaction on reading your note was “good heavens! You’re further along the ordination track than I am, and you’re asking ME?”
I know there are some who think baptism should only happen in church (I disagree). There are some who think baptism should be a public thing (I tend to agree with the rationale behind this and would encourage as many guests as practical be present if the baptism is at home).
But my gut instinct goes to what Jesus said about “let the little children come to me, and do not prevent them, for of such is the kingdom of God.” And quite honestly I can’t think of anything more appropriate than a child being baptized by his own grandmother.
But all the above is of course JMO. Best bet is to ask God what He thinks and do whatever He tells you.
Many blessings on your grandson and the whole family!