Love, Love, Love, LOVE LOVE this TRUTH! I believe the body of Christ desperately needs to understand and assimilate this into our practice!

Watch out for Yoders ----- either Anabaptists or throwovers to a lesser faith!!

One more thing. I can't say I "completely" disagree. Of course, as Hebrews points out, we are all priests of the New Covenant who are all supposed to offer spiritual sacrifices to God. Instead of getting rid of the offices which Jesus gave through Paul, we should just come to a better understanding and embracing of the lay vocation, without diminishing the beauty of the ordained ministry. Both are equally holy. Both are equally given. Both are equally necessary for the Kingdom of God. And we ought to discern which vocation Jesus gives to us and pray for the grace to accept it with courage and joy.

Wow. I have to say that I completely disagree with this, based on theology and experience, although it makes sense based on our differing experiences (I'm a convert to Catholicism from Lutheranism and Non-denominationalism, I'm 23).

I don't mean to be a constant nag, but how do we deal with the ordained ministers of the New Covenant that are called apostles (cf. Eph. 4:11), elders (Jas. 5:14), bishops (1 Tim. 3:1), and deacons (1 Tim. 3:8ff)? How about in James, for example, when somebody is sick, the elders are called in and not just 'normal laity'? How about the myriad of quotes from the years of the Apostles regarding them being the Bishops and the laity listening to them? What is the meaning of excommunication that the Scriptures talk about?

I believe there is more to hierarchy then some sort of 'un-cool thing of the past'. It's Biblical. Paul himself was an Apostle, a Bishop, who, precisely because he was a pastor, gave commands to people.

Lastly, if what you are saying is true, and much of it is, how do you deal with the following verses in Titus 1?
7 For a bishop, as God's steward, must be blameless; he must not be arrogant or quick-tempered or a drunkard or violent or greedy for gain,
8 but hospitable, a lover of goodness, master of himself, upright, holy, and self-controlled;
9 he must hold firm to the sure word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to confute those who contradict it.
10 For there are many insubordinate men, empty talkers and deceivers, especially the circumcision party;
11 they must be silenced, since they are upsetting whole families by teaching for base gain what they have no right to teach.

Sounds pretty hierarchical to me. Where is that in today's 'modern' trends?

Dude...

DUDE.

Ok this is the perfect post for me this week. Myself and a few others are in the process of starting something fresh here locally. We're collaborating on the ministry and we want it to be collaborative in nature. We'll have "leadership" but we hope that "ownership" will be shared amongst all involved. Some our stream-of-consciousness thoughts while brainstorming on the ministry were:

- collaborative ministry, not focused on an individual focal point (or person)
- The entire gathering has to have ownership of the ministry, and the ministry has to have one common vision that is collaborative and agreed upon.

One issue I have with the separation of staffed "ministers" from laity is that laity end up feeling complacent. They think they can come in on Sundays and be a mere audience member. They don't realize that by virtue of their relationship with Christ, they're not in the audience... they're on the stage. They're called to work out their faith and make disciples. They're called to love God and love others. They're called.

We're planning on this new ministry having a spirit of involvement and collaborative ownership right from the start. We're hoping that by instilling this spirit from the beginning, mere "attendees" will recognize the need for active participation in the ministry of the group.

Thanks so much for sharing this!

The fact that all believers are now priests is a beautiful thing; we all have direct access to the reconciliation and connection with the Father. I haven't read Yoder... yet, however I don't think the bible would tell us to cut out biblical "churches" as Paul planted them with a fervor in the cities of Asia Minor. And these churches had leaders, pastors, elders, etc... but perhaps what we are seeing in the West is a dysfunction in our churches called lack of discipleship. I have been thinking of this a lot lately... the church as an institution has taken discipleship to be an option after membership rather than a vital piece of your relationship with God. Are we disciples of Christ or members of The Church On Every Corner In America. Are we seeking to be disciples of Christ and seeking to coach others in this discipleship... or are we comfortable being the guy who takes his family to church because that is what you must do to get into God's favor ending up in heaven someday?

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. :)

I think they point to that, too! :) And I appreciate the "call to arms" as well, BUT I think it does Yoder injustice to use that passage for something other than its intended message... or to water it down. It seems to me that if we take Yoder seriously, we must do nothing other than seriously consider the consequences of these words (and the rest of his work in this book and elsewhere), which seem to be de-institutionalization.

Well, assuming Yoder did intend to advocate the 'de-institutionalizing' of the Church, I think I would support that to the extent that Justin seems to support it, specifically to empowering the laity (Justin, correct me if I'm wrong). However, I think the biggest threat that de-institutionalizing offers is that it threatens the profession of the clergy. The big thing I think those institutions provide is the training and development that is necessary for a well-equipped ordained leadership. Our churches don't need a pastor that can do everything him/herself, and indeed shouldn't have one; the laity ought to be handling most things at a church. But our churches DO need someone who has been educated, trained, and vetted to be a well-equipped spiritual leader - that's something de-centralization isn't going to have a substitute for.

For the most part, I agree with you. My question in return is this: Can the very process of ordination of clergy be de-centralized? Can and *should* it be a local, congregational, contextual process?