Blog 4 of 7 - Church The Priest
The purpose of this blog-post is to come back to 1 Peter (which also featured heavily in Blog 3) to see what it has to say about the role of the whole church community as priest.
In 1 Peter, Paul talks of Christ as the cornerstone, in another building metaphor. But here the terms are slightly different from what was seen in Hebrews:
Come to him, a living stone, though rejected by mortals yet chosen and precious in God’s sight, and like living stones, let yourselves be built into a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood, to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ.
1 Peter 2:4-5
Here, the whole spiritual house seems to be the church, or maybe, writ large, the whole community of God’s people. Christ is Himself a living stone, and indeed, the cornerstone of the whole structure, as Paul says, quoting Isaiah:
For it stands in scripture: “See, I am laying in Zion a stone, a cornerstone chosen and precious; And whoever believes in him will not be put to shame”.
1 Pet 2:6, referencing Isaiah 28:16
Christ is the essential stone in the house; but, crucially, all the other people in the church are also described as living stones (lithoi zontes), of the same material and with the same attributes as Christ, but building on the foundation which he makes. Christ is the priest par excellence, but His church is also a “holy priesthood” which is to “offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God”. The body of believers is not just meant to stoop around the glowing Christ like attendees at some heavenly bonfire. To be the Church is to be somehow made of the same stuff as Christ, building on His foundation in an interlinked, networked and complementary way, like stones in a building.
What does this mean in practice? The rest of 1 Peter does give some clues; the whole church is called to be holy in all its conduct, reflecting the holiness of God (1 Pet 1:15-6); they are to purify their souls by obedience to the truth, and mutual love “from the heart” (1 Pet 1:22); they are to have a sense of permanence, much like the Melchizedekian priesthood, by remembering their “inheritance that is imperishable, undefiled, and unfading, kept in heaven for [them]” (1 Pet 1:4); and they are to be announcers, “proclaim[ing] the mighty acts of him who called [them] out of darkness into his marvellous light” (1 Pet 2:9), being the evidence of God’s goodness and rescue. Finally, they are to be "a people" (1 Pet 2:10), a laos (whence laity) defined not by a nation or a city-state or an earthly ruler, but by their belonging to God.
Hence, there is a clear set of guidelines for how the church-as-priest should behave and be identified in the world. We see a church which is called to reflect to the world the holiness of God, the permanence of His kingdom, and His act of rescue for humankind. By its inward love for eachother, it acts as a living, breathing lesson about the love of God for the world - and so it acts as a bridge between God and His creation. Even in the church’s approach to suffering, when the “fiery ordeal is taking place among you to test you”, the church is “sharing Christ’s sufferings” (1 Pet 4:12-13).
It is passages like this that led Graham Tomlin to summarise that
... the priestly character of the Church consists precisely in its calling to sound publicly the virtues of Jesus Christ, the true High Priest. The Church is priestly when it declares the praises of Jesus Christ to people who understand neither the identity of Jesus Christ, the one through whom God blesses the world, nor their own priestly calling.
The Widening Circle, Graham Tomlin, p.108
In other words, the church is priestly when it is involved in this reflection of the priestly work of Jesus Christ, when it is showing the world the holiness of God and sharing in Christ’s suffering. This is also affirmed in the Common Worship service of ordination of priests, which says:
In baptism the whole Church is summoned to witness to God’s love and to work for the coming of his kingdom… all God’s people... are to tell the story of God’s love.
Ordination of Priests in the Church of England, Common Worship. Emphasis mine.
This may feel like quite a departure from the Christocentric priesthood of Hebrews; but even there, the author says that we “have become partners of Christ”, and are “partners in a heavenly calling” (Heb 3:1 and 3:14), using both times the term metochos - someone who shares, takes part or has membership in something. Whatever Christ is, we share in that, rather than simply submitting to or blindly following it.
It is fortunate that God calls His whole people into a priestly ministry reflecting Christ’s priestly ministry, because that seems to be exactly what our current context needs. Indeed, three of the focuses of Chelmsford Diocese’s “Re-Imagining Ministry” strategy are “Addressing the availability of stipendiary clergy”, “Recognising and celebrating the ministry of all” and “Developing licensed ministry”. The direction of travel is to encourage team ministry, Mission and Ministry Units (MMUs), more laity equipped and licensed to do more for the church, and more of an ‘oversight’ or ‘supervisory’ role for the priests, as the number of full-time stipendiary priests falls. It is tempting to see this fall in stipendiary priests as the driver of necessity for the growth of lay ministry; but 1 Peter reminds us that the church is always meant to be constituted of living stones from the whole congregated assembly, while 1 Corinthians’ celebrated depiction of the church, as a body with different members, clearly points to a model of church where everyone can use their gifts. Furthermore, it is clear that these gifts include teaching, healing and leadership for the members of the body, not merely administrative support (1 Cor 12:12-31).
Happily, these themes were also borne out in my interviews. Interviewee C stated much of their progress in ministry was due to their leadership style - “delegate, delegate, delegate!”. They sang the praises of effective, empowered delegation, which avoids causing dependency among those delegated to, and prevents messiah-complex from the priest who is delegating. Interviewee C added that they took care not to have too much 1-2-1 time with particular members of the church, preferring time in small groups where discussions could be facilitated, but input could come from anybody. Interviewee A was broadly in agreement. In a church setting, they said, they were no more holy than the rest - indeed they were “not there to embody Christ” any more than anyone else in the congregation. What really kept the church going, interviewee A said, was not the “magic fingers” of the president offering the sacraments, but the “little bits of servanthood which are unseen”, coming from members of the congregation, often in secret.
The Five Marks of Mission also bear out the truth that the whole church is involved in its priestly work. By separating out, as they do, “Tell” from “Teach” and “Tend”, it is made clear that mission is not about setting up a worshipper-factory, but inviting in and nourishing a family. Nurture of new believers will involve ensuring that they, too, get involved in the priestly work, reflecting holiness and loving from the heart. The diocesan strategy “Transforming presence” places a lot of emphasis on nurture courses, stating that each church should do at least one such course per year. In its focus on “Service with accountability”, it also calls for structures where mutuality and collaboration are used, both for missional projects, and for routine operational oversight:
This is not about setting up some sort of ecclesiastical Ofsted, but a deep mutual accountability where every Church, every minister and every individual Christian has an understanding of what responsibilities they carry. Serving with accountability is therefore a deeply spiritual issue.
Diocese of Chelmsford Transforming Presence, p. 15
In practice, this will be hard and will require culture change throughout the church. As both interviewees A and B said, in the course of their daily work, they get no encouragement or positive feedback from any of their parishioners. And as Justin Lewis-Anthony adds, it will also require transformation of unhealthy aspects of church hierarchy:
Warren’s survey of her clergy’s relationship with their bishops shows … anxiety … wrapped in psychological maladaption. Again and again … the role of bishop was seen as … father-in-psyche. Bishops were absent fathers… guilt was a major motivating factor in most of her respondents’ lives.
If you meet George Herbert on the road, kill him, Justin Lewis-Anthony, p. 54
For balance, one critique must be voiced about this renewed focus on church-as-priest. Interviewee B responded to a question about how the strategy Transforming Ministry was directing their MMU, by marching to a filing cabinet and pulling out a large map. They unfurled it, showing all the village communities in the MMU; boundaries were marked in yellow highlighter, and the local population was written on each settlement. Some villages only had a population of 200. “I have responsibility for three churches [ in an MMU of eleven ], and they all need two church-wardens and a treasurer. Where are they meant to come from?”, the interviewee asked.
When I asked whether the Transforming Ministry strategy was a step in the right direction to address these problems, they replied that they felt a model which worked in urban and suburban areas was being driven into rural contexts where it may not work. They added that the financial support for three buildings with such small congregations was not feasible, and with fewer priests and a shrinking pool of lay people (due in part to higher retirement age), their view was that more change was needed. They were not looking forward to having to shut at least one of the churches, and the conflict that this would bring. On reflection, this critique is not really of the idea of church-as-priest, but on the diocesan strategy not going far enough with empowering lay and team ministry in sparse rural areas.
Fundamentally, it makes sense that the church has a calling to priesthood as a body, because each member of that body has a calling too. As Francis Dewar puts it:
I believe that potentially every human being has something of value to offer to the world’s life… God calls out from us all kings of very ‘ordinary’ capacities … in the exercise of them we ourselves become a gift to others... But most of our potential creativity and love remains hidden… We fit ourselves comfortably within the safety of others’ or society’s expectations… We perish in our dullness and others perish because of it.
Called or Collared?, Francis Dewar, p. 5
In order for the Church to not “perish” in Her “dullness”, those callings of individuals need to be pursued and heard. Yet also, for the church to really function as a body, those callings need to be synchronised, or woven together, in an orderly and functioning way. This is our first glimpse of the need for a human minister-as-priest, to do what Justin Lewis-Anthony, following Rowan Williams, refers to as “weaving” together of called Christians in community (If you see George Herbert... Ch. 9).
The next blog will focus on the human minister, and explore to what extent they are a ‘priest’ (or, as I have already argued, 'presbyter').
Comments