Priesthood
Roger Seal considers ‘the priesthood of all believers’
Friends often refer to the idea of ‘the priesthood of all believers’, but what exactly do we mean by the term?
‘Priest’ literally comes from the Greek word presbyteros, meaning one who is older, whence the office of ‘elder’, a title predicated on the notion that one who is older can be assumed to be wiser and better suited to lead. Probably a richer meaning, and in the mainstream of Jewish and later Christian thinking, is one who represents God before humanity and humanity before God. From the time when the focus of Judaism was the temple at Jerusalem, there was absolute hierarchy (that is ‘rule by priests’) led by the high priest, who were believed, and believed themselves, to speak and act with divine authority and to command deference by the whole nation, and, conversely, to intercede uniquely with God on the nation’s behalf.
Some Christians, especially after the destruction of the temple in AD70, developed the ideas that Jesus was none other than the eternal high priest (see the Epistle to the Hebrews), and that they themselves had collectively become a royal priesthood (first Epistle of Peter) in succession to the temple officials. However, it was not long before a clerical structure had developed and ‘priesthood’ commandeered by a self-selecting, all-male and life-long hierarchy. This continued throughout Christendom until the Reformation, when lay people started to assert that they were able to communicate with God directly and immediately, and without mediation.
The brave pioneers in this process, challenging the authority of both church and, in many instances, state, often paid for their temerity with their lives. However, the ‘veil of the temple’ was now torn beyond repair – and more and more believers became convinced that they no longer needed the clergy to encounter God. It was in that great movement that seekers after truth, such as George Fox in the seventeenth century, forsook all figures of religion as then established – for they had themselves found one who truly spoke to their condition.
So, what remains of priesthood? Is it discredited, obsolete or superseded? Certainly fewer people, even among the faithful, are ready to accept the traditional understanding with its ethical, cultural, philosophical, psychological and economic associations. Is it time to return to essentials? I suggest it is, and that ‘priesthood’ understood afresh still has great meaning and value.
Without doubt there are perils, pitfalls and temptations lying in wait for anyone who believes they are called to represent God before people or to represent them before God, but that call, if genuine, is solemn and transformative. It requires that we be prayerfully alert, brave enough to venture where we dare not go in our own strength, and humble enough to avoid ego blocking or bending God’s will. Jesus taught: ‘Let your light so shine before men that they may see your good works and glorify your father which is in heaven.’ Priesthood involves directing people always from the messenger to the message, from the actor to the author.
It is a matter, once again, of revisiting the temple to remove the veil (the screen) of exclusivity around the Holy of Holies once and for all. Priesthood is plainly not just for males, as many churches have belatedly come to recognise. Priesthood cannot be for life, irrespective of the integrity and vitality of that life; arguably, it is not even specific to appointment for a triennium. And priesthood does not accord with, is not limited to, human selection and organisational structures, for God can and does call whom He chooses, at any time, in any situation, to priesthood.
Who is ready to respond?
