Orthodoxy and the Priesthood of the Believer

[Soulfyre]

One of the most interesting aspects of Orthodoxy is their very high view of the priesthood of the believer. Although they may be sacerdotal, the Orthodox are not magesterial. They believe that the teaching ministry of the Holy Spirit belongs to the Body of Christ as an organic whole, not simply the bishops, priests, monastics, or religious. This is why they tend to view Truth in retrospect, as they do the recognition of "ecumenical councils." An "ecumenical council" is not one which simply fits a particular political designation. Rather, it is one whose decisions ultimately commend themselves to the church, the Body of Christ. In that sense, Holy Tradition is not simply some dessicated dogma handed down by an designated religious authority, but the living practice of the church.

This also explains why the Orthodox find the term "sola scriptura" inadequate, for it was the early church who, through much discussion and unity of practice, established the canon of scripture. They believe that to deny that the church is the guardian of Truth, in scripture and tradition, is to deny one of the cardinal ministries of the Holy Spirit to the church--that of leading the CHURCH into all truth. But having said that, they do believe Truth to be consistent. If something has stood the test of time and usage, they are unlikely to overthrow it for the latest theological fad. And where the Bible is silent, respecting the mystery of the Infinite Eternal and His interaction with His creation, they are unwilling to extend arguments to their "logical" conclusion: if the Bible appears to indicate the Absolute sovereignty of God, and the free choice of a person, they will accept the mystery and not try to decide one in terms of the other.

The result is, of course, that Orthodox theology is by its very nature less "systematic" than that of the Western churches. But this is, in fact, intentional. They believe, much as did Francis Schaeffer, that God can communicate things about himself truly, which we may understand truly. But our essential "creatureliness" prevents us from comprehending God fully, or understanding Him exhaustively. Thus "all truth" is descriptive: all that God wishes to reveal to us by His Holy Spirit may be known truly, and is True. But "all truth" does not imply the exhaustive understanding of God, for a "god" so known, could not be God.

In Christ,

Matthew (soulfyre)

[Kenny]

Sweet, I just went to a Baptist camp and learned all about this, but I already knew it...just really didn't think of it being so important to our beliefs! Funny coincidence.

[melinky]

Soulfyre said:

...where the Bible is silent, respecting the mystery of the Infinite Eternal and His interaction with His creation, they are unwilling to extend arguments to their "logical" conclusion: if the Bible appears to indicate the Absolute sovereignty of God, and the free choice of a person, they will accept the mystery and not try to decide one in terms of the other.

As most of you have already learned, my walk with Christ is very new compared to the majority of people who post here. Theology is very new to me and I often have to wrestle long and hard with some of the view-points presented here. However, this is a statement that I can agree whole-heartedly on. The problem is that sometimes I feel the Bible is silent when others feel it is speaking loudly and clearly.

Melinda

[Alejandro]

members.aol.com/Patriarchy/book4.htm

1 Peter 2:9

[Soulfyre]

I found the link you published interesting. There is much that I find commendable from an Orthodox perspective, but other things that I find troubling. In many ways, I find the rebellion against all "institutional" churches much like the rebellion in my own generation against all "organized" religion (what were we then advocating? dis-organized religion?).

I support, as does Orthodoxy, the clear New Testament teaching regarding the "priesthood of the believer". This understanding is crucial to the daily life of the believer, who views life and creation sacramentally, in which, with restored vision, the believer can again see the glory of God in His creation and the image of God in people, and can relate appropriately, sacrificially offering all that is, including his or her own life, back to God in worship and praise. It is crucial in the concept of the family, as the seminal representation of Christ and His Church, and of the restoration of the kingdom once given Adam and Eve, in which they were to love, nurture, protect, and admninister God's creation, offering that which God created back to Him in worship. But it is clear that Paul instructed Timothy to appoint elders/bishops, deacons, and "deaconesses", and that in this process, not all were qualified. It is also clear that the Church as the Body of Christ gathered together weekly to worship in community, celebrate the Eucharist and Agape meal, and take collect the tithes and offerings from the community. The Body of Christ, as community, was to offer teaching, worship, healing, discipline (edjudication of conflicts between brethren and punitive/restorative action in the case of impenitent and repeated sin), and prayer. There is I believe no question, either historically or Biblically, that this was, in some sense, "institutional", and although certain patterns of worship were undoubtedly patterned after the synagogue and temple (there was distinct continuity of the grafted branch with the vine), its essence was distincly different.

In the structure of the "institution", Apostolic succession was inevitable. Leaders were not selected at random, nor by acclamation. Rather, for example, Paul told Timothy to "appoint" elders/bishops, based on manifest qualifications. Note, however, that neither Paul nor Timothy functioned in what might be considered the role of "presbyter" or "elder". Now of course, Paul was an Apostle, one among the men selected directly by Jesus Christ as ambassadors of His new Kingdom. But what of Timothy? His responsibilities included more than one church community and was clearly authoritative (as was that of Titus). Many might consider Timothy and Titus prototypical of the later "bishop", whose care over the wider community of Christ included the appointment of qualified leaders in each individual community. The relationship between elders/bishops was collegial rather than strictly hierarchical. The first Church Council recorded, held in Jerusalem, to discuss the issue of incorporating Gentiles into the community. Note that Peter did not issue a decree. Rather, James issued the collegial decision, in reliance upon the direction of the Holy Spirit, of those who attended. The decision was fully authoritative ("It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us..."). But note also that the process of excommunication is given this same authority by both Jesus Christ and Paul. This is the basis of understanding the concept of Apostolic Succession as it relates to the Church. The apostles appointed leaders who appointed leaders, etc., etc. (Note: although all elders were to be able to teach, there is no definitive indication that all elders were to have the particular gift of pastor/teacher; hence, the designation of some as "pastors").

Now does this mean than all similar gatherings of leaders are infallible? No. For the importance of the priesthood of believers is such that decisions of councils must be in some sense ratified by the general acceptance of the Church. The Church is neither a republic or a democracy, but a monarchy. Those of us who strive to follow Jesus Christ and Holy Tradition, both in the Bible and in the practice of the early church, can err. Hence we look to the Holy Spirit, our Helper, Teacher, and Advocate, to guide us into all Truth. But those Councils normally accepted as Ecumenical have been approved through general Church practice, and thus we essentially accept that this indicates the imprimatur of the Holy Spirit. We must also be careful to avoid dogmatic prescription where much disagreement still exists. This has been the practice of the Orthodox Church over the years.

It is the purpose of this "institution" to serve and nurture each person, to enable them to fulfill that function set out for them among the "priesthood of believers". Its purpose is to enable each man to fulfill their kingly role within creation and the family, and each woman to fulfill her queenly role. These roles are not "equal" (identical), but are certainly of equal importance. The priests (a word derived from "presbyter"; also, note the plural), carry the primary pastoral roles as servants of the Body of Christ in preparing each person to grow in the grace and in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. But each man is king/priest/pastor in his own family. Those who are deacons are also servants of the Body of Christ, although usually without formal teaching functions. Hence the Church as "institution" supports and serves the Church as "organism", nurturing and caring for the growth and maturation of the Body of Christ.

I am reticent, as I believe most might be, to be too quick to decry the "institutional" church, for the Church was "instituted" by Jesus Christ through the ministry in power of the Holy Spirit. Although there are certainly tares among the wheat, for the humanity of the Church still lives in a fallen world, one must beware of encouraging anarchic, rather than Biblically monarchic, Christianity.

What do you think?

God bless and keep you,

Matthew (soulfyre)

[Alejandro]

I did not get to finish reading your post (I am not yet used to larger posts). But I did read the final paragraph.

I am going out on a limb here, but when the publication I linked you to says "institution" they mean a presrcibed order of things to do in the Church service; e.g. first 'praise and worship', then tithes and offerings, etc.

I am not sure. I have tried contacting them in the past to comment and to chat, but I have not received anything fromt them.

I will finish reading your post and comment. Thanks!

God bless you,
Alejandro

[Alejandro]

It is funny when people talk about organised religion and haven't a clue. Dis-organised religion is something that I see all too much with my friends who want to break away from the 'Church'.

I agree that there has to be some authority, and not a self-appointment of Pastoral readiness, or somethine of the like. But as a Christian we are all called to Pastor. I do not mean this in temrs of pulpit, Pastor over a congregation. I mean this in a true sense of what Pastor is supposed to be: a servant. I believe that is what is meant by being a Pastor.

I agree that we must look to the Ruach HaKodesh, or we are flawed in our attempts.

Blessings,
Alejandro