Rediscovering Priesthood ...

[Edward Green]

I must admit I have been in circles when it comes to ecclesiology. I have seen non-hierarchical communities that were deeply authoritarian and non-authoritarian communities that were deeply hierarchical. I have been part of consensus communities that collapsed when key creative personalities have moved on and supposedly led communities that have operated by consensus.

The models that we have inherited strike me as a mess. 'Priesthood of believers' and 'Priesthood of the professional' (with whatever theological underpinning) both speak of individuals, and yet both the Old and New Testaments seem to see 'Priesthood' as a corporate category. Yet many of us are in 'ministry' and recognize the places of 'leadership', 'facilitation' and 'representation' within the faith community, in the wider community and in the pub. It it was not so we wouldn't have speakers, authors, the 'high priests' of emergent.

How do we then continue the story of ministry within the Anglican tradition, and move from me / them, to us? What is it to be a Priestly People? Can we garner anything from the New Testament or do we need to see it as dynamic contextualization that should be imitated in form rather than content?

[Tim Norwood]

I've been thinking a lot about priesthood recently myself. It's not a term I find it comfortable to use - coming from charismatic evangelical stock - but I have slowly begun to recognise that it is more important than I first realised.

I had conversations a few months ago with a colleague who felt that her "priesthood" was being neglected because she was in "secular" employment. This made us reflect on the strange way that eucharistic practice actually empowers priestly identity/service. Another colleague commented than in his "secular" place of work there were others who could be identified as the "priesthood" because they had power / knowledge / authority to determine what is true...

As I've been reading and studying, I share your observation that NT "priesthood" is inherently corporate - arising out of a concept of shared "eldership". In the NT, elders are leaders, but are also those who are called to care/nurture the people of God. Christian "priests" are therefore those who are called to act as corporate pastoral leaders and are empowered to perform certain actions on behalf of the community - particularly in prayer and healing. I have begun to speak about "priestly presbyters" as a way of indicating the way the two traditions of "eldership" and "priesthood" interrelate and influence each other.

If "priests" are those who are called to stand between God and creation - then Jesus is the only true high priest - but we are all called to take on some priestly functions as his people. Christian priesthood must not be about power but about service. If we have emergent "high priests" then I would hope they would be people whose engagement with world and Spirit equip them to show us the way - but not command us to go through it.

I think there is a lot that we can garner from the NT and the Anglican tradition that can help us think through a more corporate concept of priesthood - with space for those "set aside" or identified for particular functions / roles etc...

Thanks for raising the question.

[Edward Green]

Still mulling this issue and re-reading the thread. Thank you for these comments. Very helpful.

[Mike Croghan]

So what do y'all think of this?

Reactions to Sydney vote on Lay Presidency of Eucharist

Reactions to the Diocese of Sydney vote to allow Lay and Diaconal presidency [translation: presider/celebrant] at the Eucharist can be found on blogs and in articles from news sources around the Anglican Communion. Most seem to find Sydney's decision confused and illogical.

(read more)

You may be surprised to hear that I'm inclined to agree with those who say it's a bad move. I'm more in favor of Anglican bodies carving out specific "bubbles" of free experimentation within themselves, rather than saying "Shazzam! We're trashing the ancient rules in *every church in the diocese*! Deal with it! Hey wider communion, we're goin' our own way! Deal with it!"

The error, IMHO, is in attempting to move "forward" using the old methods of top-down control and hierarchical power, explicitly affirming the modern value of enforced uniformity (these are the new rules throughout the diocese) without (it seems) much regard for the fact that you're breaking those same rules on a wider level.

Better (it seems to me) to define a certain type of experimental congregation that's explicitly *outside* [some of] the rules (yet still in communion) to allow for experimentation and emergence. Better to say: the experimentation being done in these special congregations is *not* a declaration of institutional revolution on the Communion. These congregations are *special*. They're experimental. There's no sense in which they're forcing any of you to do or recognize anything. They're the weird kids who bucked the family line of work and went to art school. They're not forcing you to do art, or even to like art. But they're still family.

This move in Sydney may be "progressive", but it has nothing to do with "emergence", I think.

[Edward Green]

The Eucharist is an Apostolic act. Presiding at it defines you as an Apostle or the Apostle's representative. The celebration and reception is about the whole church anyway. I think Sydney are just trying to score points.