THE PRIESTHOOD OF ALL BELIEVERS
by Ed Hogan,
pastor of FBC, Crockett
Introduction
The purpose of this chapter is to define, interpret, trace and integrate Baptist beliefs concerning the Reformation precept commonly known as “Priesthood of the Believer “. Parts of this chapter will be academic while other sections will be confessional. One must recognize that the concept of “Priesthood of The Believer” can be studied in the ivory tower of the academy, but it must be experienced personally and communally before it can be understood. Recently my daughter, Amanda, proclaimed to my associate pastor’s son, “My dad is the chief!” Zachary responded, “He is not; he’s the preacher.” Amanda answered back without drawing a breath, “He’s the preacher and the chief!” I asked Amanda to apologize to Zachary, and she complied with some hesitation. I sat on the floor of our church nursery, and the three of us discussed the concept of the “Priesthood of All Believers “ I opened by saying, “None of us are chiefs; we are all equal.”
Definition of Terms
To understand this most basic of Baptist principles, it is necessary to define terms. The word “priesthood” connotes responsibility and privilege. It means that one must do the work of the church, even if he or she is a layperson
It is not just the clergy’s job; it is the layperson’s job as well. It is a partnership Everyone must pray for others. Everyone must minister Everyone must witness. Everyone must study God’s word and show themselves approved. “Priesthood also means privilege. Every Christian can go directly to God’s throne through prayer. Each person can receive forgiveness from sins. One does not need a “priest” to interpret God’s word. An individual can read and understand the Bible without the help of clergy.
Baptists are too often apt to claim the privileges of “priesthood” and neglect the responsibilities thereof. While it is true that everyone can interpret scripture as an individual, interpretation is best accomplished in the context of the Christian community. It is true as well, that God can be worshipped anywhere at any time; however, one must experience worship corporately on a regular basis to experience the fullness of God’s grace. Witnessing is an act of sharing the goodness of Christ. It should also be an invitation to become a part of the community of faith. To introduce someone to Christ is to help them become a brother or sister. The privilege of sharing God’s grace becomes the responsibility of nurturing a babe in Christ. This convert is not a number or statistic. This convert becomes family; therefore my responsibility. I am my brother’s/sister’s keeper.
For the purpose of this chapter, the traditional phrasing of “priesthood of the believer” has been changed to “priesthood of all believers.” It is a subtle but important change. The use of the definite article “the” can lead to an unhealthy individualism. The word “all” protects the concept of individuality, but adds the dimension of community.
The final word, “believe,” seems easy. One might assume that to be Baptist is to be a believer. It is both naive and arrogant to assume that everyone who has been baptized into a Baptist church is a believer. John states, “Those who have come out from among us, never were a part of us.” (I John 2:19) Walter Brueggeman suggests that an area of immense potential for evangelism in the next century are church members.1
Brueggeman declares: “My theme is that forgetters can become remembers. My thesis is that evangelism is a task not simply of making outsiders into insiders, but of summoning insiders from amnesia to memory.”2 As Baptists we understand that many members never appropriated the “memory” of the faith. When one considers that a large percentage of Southern Baptists members are non-resident members, the only assumption one can make is that there are many among us that have been baptized, but have never been saved; never empowered to enjoy the benefits of “priesthood.”
Biblical/Theological Considerations
Adam and Eve experienced a relationship with God quite different than ours. In Genesis 3:8 we are given a “snap shot” of the nature of this relationship. God came to walk with them in the cool of the day. Their relationship to God was uninhibited. The best we can hope for is to echo the hymnist who says, “in the rustling grass, I hear Him pass, He speaks to me everywhere.”3 Adam and Eve sinned, and sin meant separation. God did not leave His creation without access to Him, but provided a means of communication. In Genesis 14:17- 20, a mysterious figure appears. A high priest named Melchizedeh (King of Righteousness), King of Salem (Peace) comes and blesses Abraham. The priesthood becomes institutionalized with the advent of Aaron and his descendents. The presence of God could be experienced in Old Testament times, but was most commonly experienced through the office of the priesthood.
Into the darkness, there appeared a great light. Jesus was born and became Immanuel, God with us. The writer of Hebrews declares, “(Jesus was) Called of God a high priest after the order of Melchizedek.” Like Melchizedek, Jesus was “without descent” (Hebrews 7:3), meaning that His priesthood came not from genealogical providence, but from “obedience by the things which He suffered.” (Hebrews 5:8) When Jesus had fulfilled the requirements of “priesthood” and suffering, He was crucified. When Jesus “yielded up the Ghost” (Matthew 27:50), “the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom.” (Matthew 27:51) Everyone had access to the Holy of Holies. The priesthood had moved from the few to the many; from the tribe of Levi to the true descendents of Abraham. (Romans 5:12) Every believer in Christ is a part of this “royal priesthood.” (I Peter 2:9)
The nature of this “priesthood” remained intact in the early church. The differences between “bishops,” deacons and lay people were expressed in terms of function, not authority. This remained so until the church received the “blessing” (or curse) of governmental approval by Constantine in 325 A.D. The church became formalized and bureaucratic. For the next twelve centuries, the church moved toward -the old system of ‘priests” and “laypeople.” The gulf widened until another mysterious figure appeared in the portals of history; this time an Augustian monk by the name of Martin Luther.
Historical Sketch
In 1517 Martin Luther began what has come to be known as “The Reformation.”4 The biggest change that Luther’s reforms brought was in reducing the number of sacraments from seven to two. Luther did not view ordination as a sacrament. He did view ordination as a setting apart for a specific task.5
It was Luther’s view of “the priesthood of all believers” which shaped this opinion. As well, Luther began to tear down the “three walls of Rome.”6 The first wall claimed that spiritual power was about the temporal. Luther attacked this premise by stating that there was no difference in authority between priest and peasant.7
In 1525 a group of Christians began “rebaptizing” each other because they believed that infant baptism was unbiblical. These “black sheep” were given the sarcastic epithet, the “anabaptists”8 Though first cousins in some ways to Luther and other Reformers, this new breed was qualitatively different. W.R. Estep vividly called the Anabaptist development the “Radical Reformation.”9 Our forebearers have passed on a history and heritage of fierce individualism. The basic distinctive of Baptist life have remained basically unchanged since the Anabaptist movement began, and they are: 1) “the Bible is the sole norm for faith and practice,” 2) “the New Testament church is composed of baptized believers,” 3) “the priesthood of the believer and the autonomy of the local congregation,” 4) “the principle of religious liberty and separation of church and state.”10 However, the principle of “priesthood of all believers” has become increasingly more politicized, ignored and misunderstood during the past sixteen years of “The Controversy.”
No doubt, historians in years to come will view the 1988 Southern Baptist Convention as a watershed year in connection to “the priesthood of all believers”. The resolution passed at that convention stated that in no way should the “priesthood of the believer” be interpreted to undermine the authority of the pastor.11 This was a dramatic departure from previous Baptist belief and practice. In 1991, Robison B. James (a traditional Southern Baptist and David S. Dockery (a conservative Southern Baptist) edited a book entitled Beyond the Impasse.12 The book was written by Traditional Southern Baptists and Conservative Southern Baptists with a dialogical format. Two conservatives, Al Mohler and David S. Dockery, provide frameworks for new theological consensus among Southern Baptists. In each case, “the priesthood of all believers” is conspicuously missing in their new theologies. Both men suggest that Southern Baptists must move beyond the narrow confines of our Baptist heritage and include the larger Christian context as well. In response to critiques from other authors in the book, the two do affirm the value of “priesthood of all believers.” However, Mohler raises an interesting question which was never answered specifically: “Those ‘distinctives’ (priesthood of all believers?) are themselves subject to debate, but space does not allow discussion here.”13 One could only hope that such a discussion will occur in the near future.
Reasons Why the Concept of “Priesthood of All Believers” Is Increasingly Misunderstood and Under appreciated
1) The program mentality of the past decades has produced an atheological people. Though Al Mohler’s disinterest in “priesthood of all believers” is suspect, one must agree with his assessment that our interest in program has produced a “progressive neglect of that common theological framework.”14 Southern Baptists were once a people of the Word. It seems that Southern Baptists are a people of programs, bureaucracies, and objectives. This has produced a Biblically illiterate generation of Baptists
2) The emphasis on Pastoral Authority” by convention leaders in the past sixteen years has undermined the concept of “priesthood of all believers”. Franklin Segler was right when he said that “ministerial authority is an oxymoron.”15 Southern Baptists have become a two-tiered society. The New Testament stressed that the difference between clergy and laity was functional and not authoritative.
3) A misunderstanding of ordination has produced confusion concerning “priesthood of all believers”. Ordination is viewed by many Baptists as authoritative and professional. This has widened the gulf between laity and clergy. T. B. Maston refused to be ordained as a deacon or minister because he viewed that ordination as practiced by Southern Baptists in his day was unbiblical.
4) The complexities of modernity have produced lay people who are more comfortable with an authoritarian clergy. In an increasingly more complex world, many people are comfortable with leaders who “tell it like it is”. Many Baptists do not want to struggle with their faith. They would prefer to be instructed in legalistic specifics of the faith.
5) There is a continual movement in Southern Baptist life toward creedalism. In recent years, “The Chicago Statement on Inerrancy” and “The Peace Report” are referred to as authoritative and binding. Though these are often called reports or confessions, they have taken on the restriction and authority of creeds. Baptists have always been stubbornly non-creedal.
6) Churches with authoritarian pastors have experienced greater church growth than other leadership styles. This has led to a utilitarian understanding of the pastoral role. Some surmise that increased baptisms are proof that an authoritarian pastoral style is justifiable and acceptable.
7) It seems that religious groups naturally move from equality to a “two-tiered” approach. The ancient Hebrews rejected God’s ideal of theocracy and desired a king. The church rejected the equality of the early church and developed priests, bishops and popes. Modern Baptists have rejected the heritage of their forebearers and have moved toward a pastor as ruler mentality. Will this trend subside or will another “Radical Reformation” be required?
8) There is a misunderstanding as to what the appropriate model of pastoral leadership should be. The Biblical model for leadership is that of the pastor as servant. Brad Creed asked his students at George W. Truett Seminary the following question: “Does a pastor lead by serving or serve by leadership?” The answer is YES! A pastor should serve. A pastor should lead. Leading is his/her service. Service is the quality of leadership. It is interesting to note that businesses are rediscovering the value of servant leadership at the same time that some Southern Baptists are ignoring it.16
Leadership and service are compatible. If leadership and service are modeled appropriately, growth will occur. Servant leadership is basic Baptist Biblical truth.
Back to the Future: Rediscovering “Priesthood of All Believers” in Baptist Life in the Twenty-first Century
It is sad, but true; I have sought for someone, anyone who could help me develop a model for “rediscovering the Priesthood of All Believers.” I have found that model, but it has not come from a Baptist. The model which I have found most helpful comes from Walter Brueggemann. For Brueggemann the text which best addresses decline within the church is Jeremiah 2 :1-8: 1 Moreover the word of the Lord came to me, saying, 2 Go and cry in the ears of Jerusalem, saying, Thus saith the Lord; I remember thee, the kindness of thy youth, the love of thine espousals, when thou wentest after me in the wilderness, in a land that was not sown. 3 Israel was holiness unto the Lord, and the firstfruits of his increase: all that devour him shall offend; evil shall come upon them, saith the Lord. 4 Hear ye the word of the Lord, O house of Jacob, and all the families of the house of Israel: 5 Thus saith the Lord, What iniquity have your fathers found in me, that they are gone far from me, and have walked after vanity, and are become vain? 6 Neither said they, Where is the Lord that brought us up out of the land of Egypt, that led us through the wilderness, through a land of deserts and of pits, through a land of drought, and of the shadow of death, through a land that no man passed through, and where no man dwelt? 7 And I brought you into a plentiful country, to eat the fruit thereof and the goodness thereof; but when ye entered, ye defied my land, and made mine heritage an abomination. 8 The priests said not, Where is the Lord? and they that handle the law know me not: the pastors also transgressed against me, and the prophets prophesied by Baal, and walked after things that do not profit.
In verses 1-4 the prophet is commanded to remind Israel of the “honeymoon;” when Israel was dependent and faithful to God. In verse five, Jeremiah asks a haunting question: What has caused the people to have walked after vanity? The answer is provided in verses 6-8. The people had forgotten their heritage. No one was telling the story. People did not hear of God’s faithfulness. People did not hear how God has led Israel from captivity to prosperity. Here is Brueggemann’s assessment: “Yahweh says, ‘I do not know what has happened, but everything has gone sour. Whereas you willingly went after me, now you go far from me, now you go after worthlessness. You have traded me in for something more contemporary, cheap, quick, and trivial.’ There is a massive crisis in the relationship. Israel has quit on its solemn vows and has gone for new companions that are inherently fickle, and cannot give what Israel needs and wants.”17
Southern Baptists have given up on the time honored principles of our pasts. We have traded our birthright for a mess of pottage.18 We have traded the Biblical for the expedient. We claim that the Bible is the norm for faith and practice, but we pick what we love to hear and obey “cafeteria style”. Where does the Bible teach about the pastor ruling the church? Whatever happened to the principles of servanthood and the practice of foot washing? What does the Bible teach about the truth? What does the Bible teach about integrity? When does the end ever justify the means?
The principle of a church of baptized believers is changing. Baptists have always believed that one must choose baptism and church membership for themselves. Between 1990 and 1991, baptisms under the age of five rose dramatically; much more than any other age group.19 We are moving dangerously close to infant baptism. Has our obsession with numbers forced us to compromise our theology of baptism and church membership?
The principle of the autonomy of the local church is changing. Increasingly the choices available to the local churches are dwindling. In 1994 the Southern Baptist Convention stated that they would not receive money from the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship.20 Though my church gives 95% of its money through traditional channels of the Southern Baptist Convention, it seems unbelievable that the Convention would tell a church how it can or cannot give. True Baptists have always known that the real power is in the local church.
The principles of religious liberty have been obliterated by the Southern Baptist Convention. The Baptist Joint Committee, an ardent defender of First Amendment Rights, was defunded by the Southern Baptist Convention in 1991.21 W.A. Criswell has stated that the principle of the Separation of Church and State is “the figment of some infidel’s imagination.” 22 This is a dramatic change from his predecessor George W. Truett who stated, “Christ’s religion needs no prop of any kind from any worldly source, and to the degree that it is thus supported is a millstone hanged about is neck.”23
Southern Baptists have changed, or have they? Without a doubt the Southern Baptist Convention has changed. The current administration of the Southern Baptist Convention has “dug out cisterns for themselves, cracked cisterns that can hold no water.” (Jeremiah 2:13) Is this statement hyperbolic? Is this a statement which only seeks to “shake the tree” to see what falls out? Indeed, if all this chapter is about is the defending of a denomination or bureaucracy, then this is a waste of time. What is at stake is our heritage. We as Baptists have believed in the “priesthood of all believers” because it is first Biblical, then Christian and finally Baptist. It is not our belief alone, but ours to share with other believers. To reject Biblical teaching for the sake of political expediency is folly which leads to stagnation and decline.
What then shall we as traditional Baptists say about the argument of authoritarian leadership which belittles “the priesthood of all believers”, but produces baptismal growth? In Matthew 28:18-20, we are instructed to make disciples. “Make disciples” is the verb of force. Baptizing is a participle which relates to the verb and can be understood to have the same force. However, baptism is but one part of discipleship. Baptism is the beginning of discipleship, not the end.
If the church is to be a “chosen generation”, it will be because we have created a “royal priesthood” (I Peter 2:9). True discipleship can never be obtained until one acquires all the privileges and fulfills all the responsibilities of the priesthood. Because we are committed to Jesus Christ, we are committed to His inspired Word; therefore, we will obey His command to make disciples. Because we are committed to making disciples, we will not be content until all believers experience the joys and frustration of priesthood. We as Traditional Baptists always have been and always will be: “Committed to the priesthood of all believers!”
1) Walter Brueggeman, Biblical Perspectives on Evangelism: Living in a Three-Storied Universe (Nashville:Abingdon Press, 1993)
2) Ibid, 90.
3) Maltbie D. Babock, “This Is My Father’s World”, 1901. As found in The Baptist Hymnal, 1975 ed., p. 155.
4) Roland H. Bainton, The Reformation of the Sixteenth Century (Boston:Beacon Press, 1952), 38. continued from page 7…
5) Roland H. Bainton, Here I Stand: A Life of Martin Luther (Nashville:Abingdon, 1978), 106.
6) Ibid, 119.
7) Ibid.
8) William R. Estep, The Anabaptist Story (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdman’s Publishing Company, 1963), 14.
9) Ibid, 15.
10) Robert Torbet, History of the Baptists (Philadelphia: Judson, 1950), pp. 16-32.
11) Southern Baptist Convention Annual (Nashville:Executive Committee of the Southern Baptist Convention, 1988), 68-69.
12) Robison B. James and David S. Dockery eds., Beyond the Impasse? Scripture, Interpretation, and Theology in Baptist Life (Nashville:Broadman Press, 1991). Specific pages of interest include but are not limited to: 18, 19, 92, 98-110, 120-125, 169-170, 206-207, 219, 244-254, 296-300.
13) Ibid. 244-254.
14) Ibid. 18.
15) Franklin M. Segler, “Theological Foundations for Ministry,” Al Fasol, ed. Southwestern Journal of Theology (Fort Worth: Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, Spring 1987), 5.
16) Dallas Morning News, Religion Section, “Seeing the Soul of Business,” March 11, 1995.
17) Brueggemann, 80.
18) Ibid, 78.
19) Southern Baptist Handbook (Nashville:Southern Baptist Convention, 1992).
20) Southern Baptist Convention Resolution, 1994.
21) Southern Baptist Convention Annual (Nashville:Executive Committee of the Southern Baptist Convention, l991).
22) Church and State, October 1984.
23) Excerpt from “Baptists and Religious Liberty” a sermon delivered by George W. Truett from the steps of the U.S. Capitol.
June/July 1995