Laypeople: Don't Baptize – That is Our Job!
As a Evangelical Protestant, I come from a tradition that believes strongly in the priesthood of all believers. What does this mean? Among other things it means that I reject a formal sacerdotal system. What is this?
From the Theological Word of the Day:
“Sacerdotalism
(Lat. sacerdos, “priest”)
Sacerdotalism is the belief in an established hierarchy that separates man from God. In such a system the priesthood stands as an essential mediator between God and man. This priesthood, according to sacerdotalists, is a necessary component in worship, receiving communion, confessing sin, baptism, and other acts of administering grace. This “caste” system is generally rejected by most Protestants who traditionally hold to the doctrine of the “priesthood of all believers” (1 Pet. 2:5). Protestants believe that the only mediator between God and man is Christ (1 Tim. 2:5). Advocates of sacerdotalism reference the priesthood established in the Old Testament which was sacerdotal. Opponents will emphasize the difference between the New Testament church and the Old Testament theocracy, believing that the Old Testament sacerdotal system is completely fulfilled in Christ and, therefore, no longer necessary (Heb. 10:19-20).”
The priesthood of all believers is primarily illustrated as the veil of the temple was rent from top to bottom (Matt. 27:51), symbolizing the fulfillment and overshadowing of the old temporary sacerdotal system. Now, you and I as believers don’t need any representation to God other than the God-man, Jesus Christ.
What does this mean?
It means that the ministry is not an elite force of those who are “called” into full-time service. Pastors, elders, priests, bishops, and deacons are no better, more powerful, or more respected by God than any other person. Ministry is not an elite force of the few and the proud. Ministry is everyone’s job, not just the clergy. I am no better or more favored by God because of my ordination. Don’t get me wrong, I am not saying that ordination is not important anymore than I would say that medical school is not important for a doctor. But what I am saying is that there is no caste system whatsoever in Christianity. Caste systems deny an important aspect of the effects of the cross. They fail to recognize Christ as the second Adam. The veil has been rent.
Included in this renting, I believe, is any semblance of a necessary mediation, even in the most sacred events, including baptism or marriage.
However, I have been at Protestant churches that do not allow lay people to baptize. In fact, I would say that this is true of most Protestant churches. Only the pastor is allowed to perform the “rite.”
Marriage is another story since the government supports an assumed sacerdotal system, not recognizing the marriages of those who perform such without a valid ordination.
As well, I have also been in situations where the church would not allow communion to be administered outside of the church. The walls of the church, in this case, form a sacerdotal architecture. Some simply do not allow anyone to administer the Lord’s table but the clergy or eldership.
The question that I have is Are not these circumstances representative of a denial of the priesthood of all believers? Shouldn’t lay-people be able baptize, administer the Lord’s table, regardless of who or where, and perform weddings?
If not, isn’t this just another form of sacerdotalism? Has the curtain really been rent or not? What am I missing?
If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!- Did the Holy Spirit indwell Old Testament believers?
- Joe Aldrich
- If You Are an Atheist, Don't Talk to Me!
- Why Evangelicals Need Apostolic Succession
- Truth in Advertising: A Case for Christianity’s Unique Claim
Print This Post
Loading ...
Jugulum on 29 Oct 2008 at 5:27 pm #
If we’re talking about “Only the pastor can administer this sacrament”, then I agree with you. That violates the priesthood of believers.
But if it’s a matter of “Only the church can administer this sacrament”, I think you may be missing something. If someone says that communion should only be practiced when the local church congregates, that wouldn’t violate the priesthood of believers. Not if any member of the congregation could conduct the Lord’s Supper. (Or, someone might say that baptism should only be done in the local church–but still allow the father of a child to baptize the child.)
It’s a matter of ecclesiology. If the sacraments are things that are intended for the gathering of the local church–as some people argue–then you could argue that they should only be practiced when we congregate. (Though it would be pretty hard to defend it if you refused to make any exceptions–like taking communion to someone on their deathbed, or baptizing them.) The point there wouldn’t be that only Official Church Officers can do it–but that it should be part of the Church. That wouldn’t be sacerdotal.
Mind you, I’m not saying I agree. My small group takes communion when we gather each week. I just don’t think that the idea violates the priesthood of believers.
Marc on 29 Oct 2008 at 5:37 pm #
In theory anyone should be able to baptize. However, baptism occurs in the context of a church community, a body under the authority of its pastors and designated leaders. Since baptism is one of those very important marks of being a Christian, anyone administering baptism outside of the authority of their church leadership are bypassing the whole body. Although we are all priests in a very real sense, in most cases it is probably best for the body as a whole to honor pastors and church leaders with the baptismal right.
dac on 29 Oct 2008 at 5:48 pm #
Jug has identified the key point that gets the truly reformed undies in a bunch
Their view is the RC view, writ small “c” – sacraments only within the church (not the Church)
The arguments to me seem to take a very few descriptive biblical accounts and make them prescriptive across all of Christendom.
Color me unconvinced by their arguements
Jugulum on 29 Oct 2008 at 6:20 pm #
Dagnabit, dac, how many times have I told you not to agree with me in snarky ways?
Anyway, do you agree that it wouldn’t violate the priesthood of believers?
William on 29 Oct 2008 at 7:37 pm #
I think I would call myself a practical sacerdotalist. First, I believe the sacraments were given to the church, as the church, rather than to individual believers (no matter their occupation or ordination). This seems to be the understanding of the New Testament. In fact, Paul argues strongly that the Corinthian church should wait until all arrive before taking the Lord’s Supper. Exceptions can (and should) be made for those who are part of the community but cannot attend because of sickness, disease, prison, etc. To deny them the sacrament would be akin to saying that they are not part of the community.
Ok . . . so, if that’s true, it makes sense that the church elect or appoint (ordain, if you will) people to administrate the sacrament. People who are trustworthy to ensure that it is done properly (remember Paul’s strong words in 1 Corinthians 11 about sickness and death if improperly administered?) That does not mean that the “laity” are any less “priests” than the clergy. “Priesthood” means that we all can go directly to God in prayer. We all have access to him directly.
I see the sacrament issue as related to regular preaching and discipline in the church. A person needs to be carefully examined and designated, set apart to do such work. But that doesn’t mean they are better, more spiritual, or any more a “priest” than anyone else.
A few thoughts, anyway . . .
Cadis on 29 Oct 2008 at 8:12 pm #
Why does anyone have to baptize us? Can’t I just dunk myself ? Why do we batize each other is what I’m asking? Why was Christ baptized by John? (I know it was a different baptism but still) John the Baptist certainly did not consider himself to be a member of a hierarchy, but I’m quite sure he knew what God had “called” “sent” him to do.
Why did Paul baptize? even though Paul said Christ had not “sent” him to baptize but to preach. And ‘if’ it is that we need someone to baptize us and ‘if’ baptism is following in obedience and is a testimony to the community of obedience and following after Christ, then who would I want to baptize me? I would want an elder, someone who has been appointed by the Christian community, someone who is known both in the Christian community and the outside community for his own testimony of obedience. Someone who is ‘called’ to that service. I don’t think this is a job for your nearest and dearest childhood friend. I think elders should be baptizing and performing marriages and keeping order at the Lords table as service to God and us. That IS thier job, or part of it.
JohnFOM on 30 Oct 2008 at 5:15 am #
Michael,
A couple of wee points, just to the side of the topic.
I’m not sure of the legalities in the US, but my understanding of Australian law is that marriages are legal only if a marriage celebrant conducts them. That is, a person who has been cleared to act on the State’s behalf in that matter. Ministers/pastors aren’t automatically marriage celebrants by dent of their ordination, but become celebrants by applying to become one. In that case marriage is not different, it’s just that the only person with the need to become a celebrant in most churches, because in this quasi-sacerdotal culture s/he is likely to perform a number of marriages, is the pastor of the church.
On your picture of ordination, I’m not sure the ‘medical school’ analogy is valid. More correct would be to liken ordination to being on the medical register. There are many people who have the training (medical school) who dont then go on to be ordained (registered) for whatever reason. But I’m just nitpicking with those two points.
Jugulum
I think the requirement that a sacrament be conducted in the ecclesia is still a form of sacerdotalism.
What you describe in the first response is still sacerdotal, just that ‘the ordained one’ is replaced by a communal priest. The community is the priest. ‘All believers’ must be read as meaning ‘the whole number’ and exclude the possibility of ‘each and every/any’.
If that requirement is so, we would need to prescribe what constitutes a gathering of the community? What is an acceptable quorum? Having a requirement that every believer in a community be in attendance is unworkable, obviously, but then how small a congregation of the community is enough to have an acceptable baptism? Does it have to be at an ‘official’ church function like a home group/bible study/church service or would it be acceptable at a dinner where just a friend was invited round?
And, just to bring in a bit of biblical content
, where does that leave the baptising of the eunuch by Phillip? Should he not have waited until there was a gathering? Did the eunuch have to be re-baptised in the next available community of believers? (Wont go into Peter and Cornelius as Peter was an Apostle and regularly gets to break the rules 
).
As for my own view, I’m can see the problems of recognising sacrements administered willy nilly by anyone who comes along. If sacrements are in some way a a visible sign of an inward grace, or even the conferring of grace on someone through another then the person performing the sacrement has to have that grace to symbolise or give. If the administering of sacrements are opened up to just anyone, how can we be confident that the performer of the sacrement has that grace. There needs to be some sort of control on who can do this and what we as the ecclesia recognise as valid.
But then again, the more I learn, the less sacremental my worldview gets
.
dac on 30 Oct 2008 at 6:47 am #
Jug – I think to “require” baptism and communion to happen “only” within the church and by the elders does violate the priesthood of believers
Plus, it has no scriptural basis as a requirment (or prescription) for all believers at all times (the church/elders thingy).
I of course do believe that communion and baptism is for all believers to participate in. In fact the “death” of baptism in the modern evangelical church is to our great shame. Believers are without excuse and stand against the teaching of the bible if they are not baptized.
britphil on 30 Oct 2008 at 7:26 am #
Michael
Isn’t this weird. Whereas politically we are miles apart, theologically we often think along very similar lines. I am glad to be able to respond to a post favourably. Lthough I am glad I read the whole of your posting through as I thought, from the title tthat you were going to make an impassioned plea for baptism to remain puerley as a domaon for the ordained! I would have looked very stupid…even by my standards.
But I can hear you protesting…but you are Anglican..by definition you must be a sacerdotalist.
Well not so fast my friend…it may not surprise you to learn that the rebellious streak in me rises to the fore here.
There are a large number, though by no means consisting of all within the evangelical Anglican fraternity who actually believeand advocate Lay Presidency at communion alongside our ordained colleagues. I would not go to war for it…it is not worth splitting the Body of Christ over. My support is two fold..first I believe it can be supprted theologically and biblically. The second reason is far more practical. The numbers of ordinands in training are falling and as ordinands retire there are not enough ordinands to replace them. In typical Anglican fashion the kneejerk reaction is to combine 2, 3 or even more churches together under the authority of one or two ordinands. Would it not be simpler to permit Accredited Lay Minsters to baptise and preside at communion? Problem solved overnight! Ironically we are allowed to conduct funeral services in, which more and more of us are becoming involved in.
I would argue however, for a properly authroised and recognised structure as I do think it would be inapproriate for any Tom, Dick or Harriet to baptise, though you may choose to disagree with me.
My experience within Anglican circles is bound up much with the role, status and power and dare I say in insecurity of some of those within the ordained priesthood. Ie aaaahhh my identity is too wrapped op in role rather than relationship with God. The ordained ministers within the Anglican communion I admire the most are those who love being part of a leadership team and would willingly allow appropriate lay people to baptise.
Incidentally you might have guessed that the Anglican church I belong to is slightly unusual,. We have a dual baptism policy in that we baptise infants, but we also hire out a huge tub which we hie and which acts as a baptistery for full/adult immersions. We are about to embark on a new church building/relocating project and the new designs for the building include a new baptistery as well as a font. Incidentally at the last baptism service, we had a couple of infant immersions and a number of adult immersions co-existing alongside each other and it had a brialliant feeling to it. Also, depending on who the people were beingbaptised, several of of our lay people climbed into the temporary and assisted in the baptism although on each occasion the words were pronounced by our Senior Vicar.
However, I currently serve on a shared leadership team which comprises of four ordained clergy, and the lay presidency issue has gone onto the backburner in wider Anglican circles.
Maybe this non/minimally sacerdotalist Anglican (which I didn’t know I was until I read your thread) should be the one to ignite the flames of the discussion once more. After all, I am more than capable of it…I’ll just blame you!
ronquiggins on 30 Oct 2008 at 7:38 am #
By focusing on marriage and the Lord’s supper we may be missing the more significant point of the separation of laity and clergy which the protestant church still holds on to in spite of their claims. By setting up the clergy (pastors) and sometimes including elders – as being more spiritual and having more Bible knowledge, the “laity” fall into the trap of sacerdotal hierarchy that we protestants say we don’t believe in.
The impact of this setup leads to lazy Christians who do not study the Word and simply come to church so they can “be fed” by those who know the Bible. Responsibility for knowing God’s Word goes out the window bringing on nominal Christians who are swayed by every wind of doctrine. What the Priesthood of Believers should be is killed by the hierarchy!
I believe this to be the root cause of Christianity losing it’s impact in America today. If more Christians took responsibility for knowing the Word, we would be leading the culture instead of the other way around. Shame on all of us for not changing the way we “do” church.
britphil on 30 Oct 2008 at 7:48 am #
Shame on all of us for not changing the way we “do” church.
Ron. I couldn’t agree more. But I would go much further. It is also about how we be, view, envision, re-imagine, re-focus and “do” church. How willing are we to embrace the challenge of change or are merely perfectly happy and satisfied with maintaining the status quo.
But isn’t this because a form of passive “satisfy me” consumerist culture has simply been allowed to invade the church, not just in America, (though significantly so) but also in the UK and across Europe as well?
Isn’t it more a co-operative process between God and each other. We need to take more personal responsibility for our faith and become far more active and much less passive in response to our spoon-fed discipleship.
Jugulum on 30 Oct 2008 at 8:33 am #
dac,
I asked about “only when we congregate”, not “only in the church and by the elders”. I agree that a requirement of “only by the elders” violates the priesthood of all believers.
Scott Ferguson on 30 Oct 2008 at 8:52 am #
Nice segue from Nominal Christians to the new topic, guys. My instinct is always to step back and see how a topic fits into the general landscape before diving in. The result is almost always richer.
Vladimir on 30 Oct 2008 at 9:06 am #
Michael,
Unless one is advocating a “Quaker” perspective on the sacraments (water baptism and holy communion as non essential and non instituted), then I think the Church offices and their inherent functions as defined by the Scriptures in fact make a clear distinction and distinctiveness between the laity (priesthood of all believers) and those formally trained and called to “full-time”/professional ecclesiastical functions.
In the Eastern Orthodox churches, this sort of sacerdotalism is one of function and calling as representative of Christ – not as an additional intermediary between God and the laity. In fact, this calling is viewed as a sacrament itself (one of seven) within the Church.
I, personally, would go so far as to say that in spite of the civil hinderances to lay ministry in certain areas (marriage, etc.) I would view such extended functions to the laity per se as a profanation of the same.
Vladimir
britphil on 30 Oct 2008 at 9:09 am #
Nice segue from Nominal Christians to the new topic, guys.
I understand where you are coming from Scott, but I would just like to say that prior to my response to Ron I did post extensively on the lay presidency/baptism issue which didn’t appear to me to segue onto the nominal believer thread at all.
ronquiggins on 30 Oct 2008 at 9:12 am #
britphil,
I couldn’t agree more with you about us being less passive in “doing” church. However, I don’t think a large change will come about quickly, if ever. Once a hierarchy gets in place it’s pretty hard to displace.
I don’t know that much about churches in other lands, although I have attended them in England, Finland & India. I might reference you to one example from your own country of the Plymouth Brethren who do exemplify the priesthood of believers in their worship. This was a breath of fresh air to me as they don’t actually have a pastor in organization form but only elder leadership, per the New Testament.
Vladimir on 30 Oct 2008 at 10:08 am #
I know it is a matter of quality, unpretentiousness, and love, but I couldn’t help but recollect the fond memories of my mother and father as I pondered the meaning of actions/deeds in the context of good works.
The quality of their good works astonished me! The recollections of both of my parents good deeds/works with respect to us three boy’s upbringing is absolutely awe inspiring!
No usurped functionary ecclesiastical positions here! Just matter of fact obedience to the will of the heavenly Father in the most mundane of all matters.
BTW, ronquiggins, speaking of the Plymouth Brethren in England, if you were in Manchester would you prefer to listen to Dr. F.F. Bruce (deceased) or some untrained, untutored, unskilled “lay person?”
Vladimir
britphil on 30 Oct 2008 at 12:03 pm #
Ron
Thank you for your comments.
Can I just add a qualifying clause regarding the Plymouth brethren.
There are two very distinctive strands of Plymouth Bretheren.
There are the “closed brethren”, who tend to be cessationist regarding gifts of the Spirit and highly exclusive in that they stress almost total separation from the world.
Then there are the more “Open Brethren” who are open to the gifts of the more “supernatural”gifts of the Spirit operating today and are very open to the community around them.
I have relatives in the UK, a family who grew up and for many years were members of a Brethren assembly. However what they found was that the lay eldership/leader acted in a very authoritarian fashion and would not permit them to think outside of strict doctrinal lines. They ended up regretfully leaving and have all joined different Anglican churches depending upon their geographical location. Nothing to do with me I hasten to add, they made the decisions entirely themselves!
We also work closely with a local open brethren assembly in our locality. Up until very recently they operated on a lay eldership basis, but have just decided that, owing to pressure ofm [pastoral work, one of the elders has been appointed full time pastor!
My claim to fame is that for two years as student I shared a house with two Plymouth Brethren guys, one of who was actually from an assembly in Plymouth,Devon UK, where the denomination originated.
I learnt a lot from talking with him and listening to him.
“BTW, ronquiggins, speaking of the Plymouth Brethren in England, if you were in Manchester would you prefer to listen to Dr. F.F. Bruce (deceased) or some untrained, untutored, unskilled “lay person?””
Vladimir, much as I share your admiration for FF Bruce can I just enlighten you to the fact that “lay teachers” today are not untrained, unskilled and untutored. The training of lay people in my denomination to work alongside ordained ministers in a team/collaborative setting requires them to virtually undergo identical training. There are some differences but not that many. There are some highly gifted lay teachers/ministers in God’s church. Maybe you need to get out a bit more!
“I would view such extended functions to the laity per se as a profanation of the same.
It will not surprise you to hear that I couldn’t disagree more! I have actually, as a lay person been approachd by the family of a personto take a funeral service because the person concerned did not want the ordained member of that denomination to bury them. After making the necessary rwquisite enquiries, I took the funeral and I got the sense that my ministrations were appreciated despite the fact that I was not ordained.
Vladimir on 30 Oct 2008 at 12:23 pm #
britphil,
What I was addressing was the usurpation and presumption on the part of individuals who would ‘make common’ or ‘blurr the boundaries’ of God’s own divinely instituted ecclesiastical structure (not to be equated as some sort of Hindu social demarcation).
All, quite frankly, are not Apostles or Prophets or Pastors/teachers…
Lay ministry and even para-church organizations can be benefical, but they are beyond the bounds and structure of the church’s structure, unless you would group them under “lay ministry/evangelism” (however competent).
Not to slight your service to that family during their time of loss, apparently, an ordained minister of the gospel is not a prerequiste for such a ceremony.
Vladimir
britphil on 30 Oct 2008 at 12:32 pm #
Hi Vladimir
I would be grateful if you would explain a bit further your take on ” God’s own divinely instituted ecclesiastical structure”
So lay ministry is by definition always inferior to ordained ministry?
“but they are beyond the bounds and structure of the church’s structure” How are they?
What lay leaders have become exteremely gifted at Vladimir is sadly, tidying up the huge amounts of emotional detritus that many an ordained minister leaves trailing in his or her wake because of their elevated view of their place in God’s divinely appoionted ecclesiastical structure.
I fully agree that not all are called to be Apostles.prophets pastors and teachwers but some are, incluing lay people, and I can assure you that the best pastroal work by far in many churches is done unseen and unheard by lay people on an everyday basis.
An dbefore I am accused of being anti-clerical I am a member of a collaborative shared leadership team comprising of lay and ordained ministers who work extremely well and respectfully together alongside one another.
I just feel that you have too high a view of ordained ministry and too low a view of lay ministry.
britphil on 30 Oct 2008 at 12:39 pm #
Hi Vladimir
I would be grateful if you would explain a bit further your take on ” God’s own divinely instituted ecclesiastical structure”
Sorry Vladimir. Here is the properly editerd version of my post.
So lay ministry is by definition always inferior to ordained ministry? I beg to dioffer. I believe the roles are different but complementary.
“but they are beyond the bounds and structure of the church’s structure” How are they?
What lay leaders have become extremely gifted at Vladimir is sadly, tidying up the huge amounts of emotional detritus that many an ordained minister leaves trailing in his or her wake, often because of an unduly elevated view of their place in God’s allegedly divinely appointed ecclesiastical structure.
I fully agree that not all are called to be Apostles.prophets pastors and teachers, I couldn’t agree more, but some undoubtedly are, lay people very much included.
To take the role of pastor for example, I can assure you that the best pastoral work by far undertaken in many churches is done unseen and unheard by lay people on an everyday basis.
And before I am accused of being anti-clerical, I am a member of a collaborative shared leadership team comprising of lay and ordained ministers who work extremely well and respectfully together alongside one another.
William on 30 Oct 2008 at 12:42 pm #
Vladimir, I think you’ve got great points. Thanks so much. Very helpful articulation.
britphil, you’re right, too, that lay people do great pastoral work (maybe the best work) in the church. In my local church, we designate “lay pastors” as distinct from “clergy pastors” simply by vocational calling. I have no doubt that my lay pastors minister in ways that I cannot. However, as a clergy pastor, I have a particular calling, given to me by the church and by God. That calling (despite who is good and who is not) allows and commands me to preach God’s word, pray for the flock, and administer the sacraments.
This is similar to other callings in the “secular” world. Only the President of the USA can give the “State of the Union” Address, no matter how good he is as a speaker. It is a matter of calling, not strictly of competence (although some measure of competence is usually required for any particular calling).
Pastors are not professional Christians. They are professional ministers.
This is good discussion. Let’s keep it going.
Jugulum on 30 Oct 2008 at 12:48 pm #
William,
Certainly, pastors have a calling–a responsibility–to serve.
They are both “allowed and commanded” to pray for the flock, as you say. But that doesn’t mean laypeople don’t pray for the flock!
If you’re going to say that only the pastor can administer sacraments, then you need more justification than pointing to the call for a pastor to minister.
britphil on 30 Oct 2008 at 1:03 pm #
Hi William
Thanks for your helpfukl comments.
“However, as a clergy pastor, I have a particular calling, given to me by the chur
I hope the high regard and respect that I have for my clergy coleagues came across/came across
“However, as a clergy pastor, I have a particular calling, given to me by the chur
But I too have a particular calling, gievn to meby the church in that I too have had hands laidd upon me bythe Bishop in a Cathdral service full of people. But in eiter sense I donm’t think that authenticates the canything.
It is as much about gifting as about calling. I havwe come across many people who feel called to ordained ministry but I would,doubt whetheer the possess the gifting for it. I would also say that there are those who begin in lay ministry and then go on to ordained ministry.
In fact where I find Valdimir’s argunment lacking is that suerly all ordained ministyry must have its origins in lay ministry.
I woulod be very wary about recommending anyone for oordination training who has come straigght out o univdersity wioh no or little life/work experience. I would adv ise great caution.
Surely your ordained ministry had its origin in some form of lay ministry. I
dac on 30 Oct 2008 at 1:08 pm #
Jug
I don’t know if the restriction about only at church is related per se to sacerdotalism, but I do think that the belief denies the sufficiency of scripture.
britphil on 30 Oct 2008 at 1:12 pm #
Hi William
Here is a better, edited version of my original comments.
Thanks for your helpful comments.
I hope that the very high regard and respect that I have for my clergy colleagues came across in my original posting.
“However, as a clergy pastor, I have a particular calling, given to me by the church”
I fully agree, but I would contend that I too, as an accredited lay minister, have a particular calling, given to me and recoginised by the larger church in that I too have had hands laid upon me by the Diocesan Bishop in a Cathdral service full of people. Admittedly there are things I am not permitted to do, and I respect that.
But in a sense I don’t think that authenticates anything. Ministry, ordained or lay
is as much about gifting as it is about about calling. I have come across many people who feel called to ordained ministry, and have even got through the training, but I would personally doubt whether they possess the necessary gifting. In fact I would urge theological seminaries when interviewing their candidates to try and explore the area of gifting just as much as they do the area of calling. The two are not identical.
I would also say that there are those who begin in lay ministry and then go on to ordained ministry. In fact where I find Valdimir’s argunment lacking is that surely all ordained ministry must have its origin in lay ministry of some sort. Nobody is ordained in a vacuum surely?
I would be extremely wary about recommending anyone for ordination training who has come straight out of university wioh no or little life/work experience. I would advise great caution. I have seen it happen, and in general terms, althought there may be isolated cases I think it is a big mistake to make.
Surely William, your ordained ministry had its origin in some form of lay ministry?
William on 30 Oct 2008 at 1:16 pm #
britphil, thanks for the gracious response. My calling certainly had its roots in lay ministry. I completely agree with you at this point. Ordained ministry should always have roots in lay ministry.
When advising people about who should be ordained, I commonly tell them, “Look for people who are already doing the kind of ministry you would expect from someone who is ordained.” In other words, the calling to ordained ministry should be clearly recognized by the church and its leadership.
I would suggest an internal calling is quite insufficient to ordain someone. The same is true for other callings, too. I know people who have an “internal calling” to sing in the choir, but no one else recognizes such a “calling.” The same could be said for any vocational calling, I think.
Jugulum, is there anything unique about ordained (vs. lay) ministry?
Jugulum on 30 Oct 2008 at 1:46 pm #
William,
A fair question. Mostly.
First, when you want to make the particular claim that only an ordained minister can administer sacraments, then it is your responsibility to explicate the difference before you can point to the call as justification. (Hmm… That sentence became complicated.) You have to talk about (1) the sacraments and (2) ordination, and then explain what it is about them that leads to your conclusion. That was my critique.
So when you reply by asking whether there’s anything unique about ordained ministry, it’s somewhat non-responsive.
However, it’s a good question to ask for a “Come, let us reason together” purpose. It’s definitely the right kind of question to look at, along with the nature of the sacraments.
Second, to answer your question: At the very least, an ordained minister uniquely possesses the regular responsibility for preaching to the congregation. He has the main teaching responsibility. (Though there might be a guest preacher from outside the church. Or even someone from within the congregation called to preach on occasion.) They also possess a measure of authority over the congregation, as Christ-like servant-leaders.
Note: I will freely admit that I do not possess a well-developed theology of calling to ministry.
historic salve on 30 Oct 2008 at 3:34 pm #
“Sacerdotalism is the belief in an established hierarchy that separates man from God.”
That’s quite a biased definition.
Truth Unites... and Divides on 30 Oct 2008 at 3:50 pm #
Laypeople: Don’t Baptize – That is Our Job!
If I’m not mistaken, the Roman Catholic Church does allow and permit lay people to baptize others (in extenuating circumstances).
Think Theology » Blog Archive » 10/30/08 - This week’s interesting “stuff”… on 30 Oct 2008 at 5:46 pm #
[...] C Michael Patton writes a great article challenging Protestants who theoretically affirm the Priesthood of all believers but practically deny it by requiring items such as Baptism or the Lord’s Supper to be administrated by the Pastor only - Laypeople: Don’t Baptize – That is Our Job! [...]
Alden on 30 Oct 2008 at 10:39 pm #
I’ve heard the priesthood of all believers preached on many times, often to encourage others to action. However, I’ve yet to meet a pastor who would let go of his pulpit, although I’ve not experienced any issues with “laity” conducting baptisms or communion in the evangelical churches I’ve been involved in. But then again, these churches really don’t believe these 2 sacraments are anything more than memorials and testimonials, so what does it matter?
It would seem that at least by the practice in some evangelical churches, preaching is the only real sacrament and the priesthood of all believes stops a bit short of that…
dac on 31 Oct 2008 at 8:30 am #
The Great Commission Church is definitely into the priesthood of believers – they “commission” pastors from the laity, don’t hire from seminaries (as a general rule).
Not a GCC member, but that is my understanding
britphil on 31 Oct 2008 at 8:47 am #
Hi Jugulum
“At the very least, an ordained minister uniquely possesses the regular responsibility for preaching to the congregation. He has the main teaching responsibility. (Though there might be a guest preacher from outside the church. Or even someone from within the congregation called to preach on occasion.) They also possess a measure of authority over the congregation, as Christ-like servant-leaders.
This depends on whether you see the position of the ordinand primarily as a one band or as the leader of a diverse team of preachers/teachers.
My gut feeling is that, in the States it generally is. Over here in the UK the situation is somewhat diffferent. The church teaching team that I am part of , which has evolved and developed over the past ten years or so, consists of four ordained members and three lay members, including myself.
The person who leads the service is always different from the person who preaches/teaches. Although the ordinands do preach slighly more than the three lay leaders, it is not by a large amount, although one of the lay leaders preaches less regularly than eveyone else out of preference and also because she is involved in leading worship, along with one of the ordinands. The leading of the worship serive is shared put virtually equally with no distinction made.
britphil on 31 Oct 2008 at 8:53 am #
Might I just add that the great advantage of this method is that there a varitety of teaching styles/methods adopted in our system, and not just a “one style (ie that of the “minister and the minister alone”) must please all approach. Also, we rarely have to import anyone in to preach during periods of vacation/prolonged illness etc, although we do have guest preachers from time to time. It also seeks to be truly collaborative, involving a partnership between clergy and laity in the preaching/worship leading arena.
Can I just add that all three lay leaders/preachers/trainers have undertaken and successfully completed a three year training programme prior to licensing and also receive continuing ongoing training alongside the ordained ministers.
britphil on 31 Oct 2008 at 9:00 am #
Before I get bombarded with worried questioners, please let me put your minds at rest by clarifying that all sacramental activity, without exception, ie Baptism. Presiding at Communion, performing weddigs etc are cafrried out by the clergy members of the team. Lay preachers/teachers are licensed to perform baptism services.
I would like to close by just dropping into the mix the comment that this modus operandi helpes prevent those of us who just love the sound of our own voices from hogging too much of the limelight…because they are not always “centre stage”. It also gives preachers the opportunity to rest, listen, reflect and receive from time to time rather than merely give out.
I fear that many ministers would feel uncomfortable sitting down and listening rather than preachin, but we feel it operates well on many levels.
Richard on 31 Oct 2008 at 1:39 pm #
I’m pretty sure that you meant to say that Christianity has no caste system, not chaste system, yes?
EricW on 02 Nov 2008 at 4:28 pm #
Another form of sacerdotalism, as already alluded to by some commentors here, is letting/having only the “preacher”/”pastor” give the teaching/sermon/message at the Sunday gatherings. This is a strange way to implement Paul’s order of service in 1 Corinthians 12-14 where “each one has a psalm, has a teaching, has a revelation, has a tongue, has an interpretation” (14:26), and while there may be those who have the gift/position of “prophet” and should be allowed to speak their prophecies in turn (14:29-32), all the members of the church are encouraged to seek to prophesy (14:1-5) to edify the assembled body of brethren.
As long as low-church, anti- (or non-)sacramental Protestants continue to reserve the pulpit and the stage for the “pastor” and/or “elders” (and in many churches these days, the service really is a stage performance, first by the “worship team/band” and then by the motivational speaker – er, pastor), to the exclusion of the rest of the congregation during the weekly gatherings, giving the “laity” authority to preside over communion or baptisms is still, IMO, missing the mark by a long shot.
Peter on 03 Nov 2008 at 7:59 am #
How did we jump from the proposition of the priesthood of all believers (which all Christian groups believe in), to the proposition that anybody and everybody can do everything in the church?
By this theory, you should baptise YOURSELF, and only yourself, because God forbid that anybody ELSE should be a “mediator”, right? Do you see the absurdity of where this shallow exegesis leads? As soon as you realise that you rely on others in the Church, the next obvious point is God instituted the elders, for the purpose of good order, to say who would and wouldn’t do what. This dates to the first century and Ignatius etc. It has nothing to do with denying a priesthood of all believers.