Why Everyone Should Wear a Priest’s Collar

priest

Read this passage from Body Politics by John Howard Yoder:

Sometimes the early Christians said they were all priests; sometimes they said that the priesthood was done away with. The concrete social meanings of the two statements, though verbally opposite, were the same. All members of the body a like are Spirit-empowered.

The monopoly of the sacrificial celebration that enables and delimits human access to the divine is swept away. The priestly person as the primary agent of access to the divine is swept away with the special ceremonies. Jesus was the last sacrifice and thus he was also the last priest. The antipriestly impact of this change, although expressed emphatically in the Pauline writings and in Hebrews, is one of the dimensions of redemption least noted and least honored in Christian history.

Translation: You have a part to play in God’s redemptive work through the church. It’s not just for “staff,” it’s for all of us. Your gifts are valid in the church. Use them.

Related Posts:

Have you enjoyed today's post? Would you kindly consider subscribing to our feed through RSS or email? That way, you're never out of the loop! BeDeviant.com comes to you, how brilliant.

Contributor: Justin Wise

A religious deviant who enjoys coffee, collared shirts, spending time with his wife and son, learning about quantum physics and creatively exploring the riches of the Spirit of Christ. Culture + Faith + Technology. Contact the author
  • There's a lot of churches dying because the congregants are leaving it to the pastor to handle the "evangelism stuff". "That's what he's paid for, after all, right?" By not taking responsibility for the most critical of the jobs we're given as Christians, and leaving that to the "staff", we're letting our church as a whole basically atrophy and eventually die. Jason's got a great line there: "Your gifts are valid in the church. Use them." Absolutely.
  • Spot on! (hope that's not too British?!) Oh well, excellent, then!
  • Forgive me for prodding, but if we draw Yoder's statement to its logical conclusion, aren't we doing away with "staff" completely? Isn't it essentially a radical call for de-institutionalization? Oh, Yoder.
  • Prod. In a word, yes. That's where Yoder's conclusion would eventually end up. It would be a logistical nightmare for where we find ourselves now in the West, but I think that's where Yoder would go.

    Look at the emphasis of our beloved Luther: "“All of us who have been baptized are priests without distinction…the sacrament of ordination, therefore, can be nothing other than…choosing a preacher…”

    I wouldn't go so far as to say it is a de-institutionalization as much as I would say it's a de-centralization of the power structure in the church.
  • Two things: 1) From whence is that Luther quote?; and 2) I agree that it's definitely a call for de-centralization of power... but it's my belief that de-centralization would/will/should inevitably and necessarily lead to de-institutionalization. Institutions draw their strength from centralization of power... without it, they crumble, you dig?
  • 1. Babylonian Captivity of the Church
    2. I see your line of reasoning. Maybe we should be asking the question, "Is/should the church be an 'institution' at all?" In other words, did Jesus ever intend for his Body to be an institution?

    I don't think the answer is no leadership at all. That's chaos. And impossible. (The dirty little secret with "no leadership" is that there actually is leadership. Someone had to lead the decision to have no leadership.)

    It's clear from Scripture that God intends to have leaders for his people. What I think Yoder is saying, and I agree with, is that the community of believers has a deeper role in leading the local church than they currently possess. I don't think having leaders is tantamount to being institutionalized.
  • Yeah, yeah. I don't think de-institutionalization = no leaders. Instead, de-institutionalization means a significant giving-away of power -- and therefore a flattening of the hierarchy which fuels itself with power -- that leads to a recovery of leadership among the (formerly) powerless. "Leaders" does not equal "bad". "Leader who monopolizes power" DOES equal "bad".
  • Yes. Exactly. Are we disagreeing? :)

    I am 100% okay with hierarchies in the church being flattened.
  • I love you.
  • Yoder's words do seem to point to that, though I think Justin was simply using them as a "call-to-arms" for the laity to take more initiative in the work our Church is doing. I don't want to get started on the whole "de-institutionalizing" of the church here... nothing good from that way comes. :)
blog comments powered by Disqus