Priesthood & Ministry
W. Carl Ketcherside
The Roman Catholic church has built up a system of special priesthood on a hierarchical basis, and in approximation to this the Protestant world generally has adopted a clergy system which relegates the members to what is referred to as "lay status," and which effectively negates the new covenant ideal of universal priesthood. Thus the concept of "the priesthood of all believers" has virtually been lost, or if it is still professed it is not given spiritual emphasis in practice.
There are a great many factors which contribute to this. One is the mistaken view concerning the nature of the church, which is no longer regarded as a functioning body served actively by every member, but is looked upon as an institution which may purchase services in its own behalf. A general apathy toward intensive study of the Bible has created a widespread ignorance of the language of revelation and its connotations. Too, the clergy system is now so venerable with age that it is accepted as of divine origin. It is believed that the Christian religion would be powerless without it.
The community of believers in our day suffers from a confusion of tongues. The terms used in the scriptures are often applied to those things which are foreign or alien to their original meaning, and new words have been coined to describe Biblical concepts which serve only to warp or distort them. General terms are given only a specific meaning, and vice versa.
For one to attempt a recapture of the original faith and order as set forth by the apostles means that he must recover the meaning attached to the words used by the Spirit. Frequently this means stripping from such words the ecclesiastical ideas with which they have been clothed. When this is done it becomes obvious that the true meaning has been concealed for many generations.
A good illustration of what we mean is found in the words "minister' and "ministry." These appear as translations of Greek terms, but they have been given such limitations in our day that the majesty and breadth originally attached to them has been all but lost.
"Minister" is from the Latin ministro, which means "to serve, to attend, to wait on." A minister is one who serves, and any service rendered is ministry. The word "minister" designates one as a servant but never, of itself, expresses or suggests the kind of service rendered. One simply cannot tell by looking at the word the nature of the service. To use the word ministry in such a manner as to apply it exclusively to one branch or field of service is to do an injustice to the language of the Spirit.
In spite of this, to speak of "the minister' in our day is to refer to only one functionary. In justification for this it is urged that Paul declared that he was "made a minister"
(Eph.3.7), that Epaphras was "a faithful minister of Christ"(Col.1.7), and that Timothy was told how to become "a good minister."(1 Tim.4.6) What does this mean? Simply that these men were good servants, faithful in whatever relationship they were called upon to sustain to God, Christ and the congregation.
"Minister" is from the Greek diakonos, which occurs 30 times. It is rendered "minister'-20 times, "deacon"-3 times, and "servant"-7 times. It is translated "deacon" in Philippians 1.1; and 1 Timothy 3.8,12. To employ it to designate a special type of labor in a congregation, exclusive of that done by the deacons would be absurd in the light of God's revelation. Yet when one asks a friend to come and hear "the new minister" he is not inviting him to listen to a speech by a newly appointed deacon. Nor does the term "associate minister" refer to an assistant to the deacons. One who decides to "study for the ministry" is not planning to train for the diaconate in most places. Yet the word "deacon" is a transliteration of the Greek word for minister.
The word for minister is found in John 2.5,9 where it is applied to the servants who drew water which was then changed into wine by Jesus. It is apparent that one could argue that a minister is "a drawer of water" with as much scriptural ground as he could contend that a minister is "a preacher of the gospel."
Phoebe is called "a minister of the church which is at Cenchrea" (Romans 16.1) but we would hardly surmise that she was sent forth by the congregation as a clergywoman. Those religious bodies which claim to oppose "women ministers" find themselves in difficulty with Phoebe, whom the apostle Paul commended as a minister of a local congregation.
Of course there is nothing in the term "servant" which defines the type of service. The nature of the service is not inherent in the word. The word servant does not mean gardener, chauffeur, maid or cook. There is a difference in saying that "A cook is a servant," and in saying, "A servant is a cook." So there is a great difference between the statements, "A gospel preacher is a minister," and "A minister is a gospel preacher."
A preacher is a minister in the congregation, but so is the custodian who cuts the grass and sweeps the floor, the one who supervises the nursery, and the one who prints and folds the bulletin. Those who use their cars to transport others to the meetings, who visit the homes for the aged, and who look after the needy, are all ministers. It is at this point we have been betrayed into a way of life and speech which contravenes God's plan and purpose. We have actually squeezed the words of the Holy Spirit until we have wrung them dry of their content.
Only one man's name appears upon the signboard with the caption--Minister. The same name appears upon the letterheads and stationary, and upon the bulletins and mailing pieces. By the very designation of one as the minister, we have successfully convinced all of the others that they are not ministers. They do not even think of themselves in that category.
If you address a group of members in the foyer with the question, "Are you gentlemen ministers of the congregation?," the laughing reply will be, "No, the minister is in the office." Even more rediculous in the light of the scriptures is for one to reply, "I am not a minister, I am just a deacon." This is the equivalent of saying, "I am not a minister, I am just a minister." It is little wonder that the church is confused.
A further indication of our "confusion of tongues" is demonstrated when we talk of one "preparing to enter the ministry." We mean by it that the person under consideration expects to make a professional career out of preaching the gospel. It is only fair to state, however, that he will be expected to take courses designated as homiletics, hermeneutics, pastoral psychology, church administration, religious communications, etc. All of this would have been wholly unintelligible to the apostles and to the communities of saints planted by their labors.
"Ministry," "ministering," and "ministration," come from diakonia, which is used 34 times in the new covenant scriptures. It first occurs in Luke 10.40 where Martha was said to be "distracted with much serving." One might infer from this that a student who went to college to prepare for the ministry would major in "home economics," with a minor in "table settings." Martha was so deeply involved in ministering that she made application to Jesus for an "assistant minister." "Lord, do you not care that my sister has left me to serve (minister) alone? Tell her to help me."
The word for ministry and ministering is employed for the daily distribution of food (Acts 6.1), for the administration of funds to the famine-ridden and drought-stricken Judean saints (2 Cor.8.4; 9.1), for the work of Paul (2 Cor. 11.8), and that of Timothy (2 Tim.4.5). Thus a person is engaged in ministry whether he is serving tables, carrying funds to the unfortunate, proclaiming the truth, or in any other fashion serving others.
There is nothing distinctive in the word "ministry" as to the kind of service performed. There are two great sources of intellectual evil in the interpretation of God's revelation. One is to create distinctions where God has made none; the other is to destroy or lose sight of the distinctions which God has made.
It is not too much to say that the life of the saint is expressed in the word ministry, or service. Jesus came not to be ministered unto, but to minister. He declared that he was among men as one who served. Those who follow him must come to minister, and not to be ministered unto. The community of believers should have as a goal the providing of an opportunity for every member to share in constructive fashion his thinking and gifts. Any system which commits the edification of the body to one person hired for the role, and reduces the rest to mere spectators is contrary to the plan and purpose of God.
It is at this point that the modern institutional church, while professing to be God's agency for transformation of the world, actually operates to defeat the divine intention. The church envisions itself as a rival of other religious institutions. It is concerned with its "image" in society. It therefore becomes involved in presenting good programs to impress the visiting public, which it calls "worship services," but which consist chiefly of ritualistic or liturgical performances.
There is no question what the gatherings of the saints in apostolic times were in the nature of family reunions. The spontaneity and unrehearsed participation was of the type which you might expect to find in our day when a Christian family sits down at the Thanksgiving table. Even the least one is heard with special appreciation, and those who are less forward are gently urged to share in the occasion.
Since religion has become highly organized by promoters, whose motivations may be quite genuine and sincere, it has had to invent and devise new offices and officers to keep it moving with accelerated pace. The idea of a personal heart-to-heart relationship with God through the Spirit has been replaced with the philosophy that one should be allied with a "a successful church." Such a church is one that enjoys good social relationships and attracts the right people whose presence can lend it an aura of respectability.
It is for this reason that the more dire need there is in a community the farther the church removes itself from it. The desperately poor do not help the image of the church by being within it. Instead they serve only to salve the consciences of the membership by allowing them to make contributions to relieve those whom they never expect to personally encounter. The "Pastor" is the front man for the congregation in our day. He is the key to its popularity or its waning influence. Often a great deal of investigation is made before negotiations begin for his hiring. His personal mannerisms, dress, tone quality and pulpit aplomb come under close scrutiny. A great deal of behind-the-scenes arguing may go on as to the relative merits of several candidates for the post. If a majority of the members of the committee are from one school, an alumnus from that subsidiary institution stands a better chance than one from another alma mater.
So much is this a part of the institutional religious life of our day that it comes with a shock of surprise when one points out that it is utterly foreign to the concept enunciated by the holy apostles. "The minister" or "one-man pastor" is unknown to the new covenant scriptures. The community of the saints was edified and strengthened by the use of every gift. The believers never gathered to hear a "sermon." The word is not even found in the sacred scriptures. Origen was called "the father of the sermon."
The royal priesthood has certain rights which are divinely given. These rights are accompanied by the responsibility to use them. They cannot be abrogated or transferred without doing serious injury to the body, of despite to the Spirit of grace. One of the basic rights is that of every faithful child of God who has the ability, to speak to his fellows for their edification and comfort. In the primitive congregations men were urged to seek this above all other spiritual gifts.
Of course this meant that the public expression of worship was so arranged as to provide for this exercise, since it would be rediculous to urge all to seek the ability to edify and then relegate the function to one imported for a fee. Instead of one taking all of the time, the brethren were taught to yield the speaking privilege to one another in love. (1 Cor.14.30,31)
And to this fact the scholarship of the world gives ready agreement. Read carefully the following statements from eminent historians.
"The participation in worship was not confined to the official members, but to every male member it was permitted to utter his apprehension of truth. The ordinary services of the church were very similar to those of a good prayer meeting at the present time." (A.H. Newman, D.D. LL.D., Manual of Church History, page 141)
"The form of worship of the primitive church was also exceedingly simple. Meetings were held commonly on the first day of the week in private houses or in some public building appropriated to that purpose. At those meetings prayer was offered, portions of the Old Testament and letters from the apostles were read, psalms and perhaps hymns were sung; and words 'of exhortation'were spoken freely by anyone who might feel moved to do this." (Andrew C. Zenas, Professor of Biblical Theology, McCormick Theological Seminary, Compendium of Church History, page 28)
"The major premise of every true conclusion as to the ministry of the Apostolic Age, must be the outpouring of the Spirit, hailed by Peter at Pentecost as the mark of Messianic times. In it Moses' ideal that all the Lord's people should be prophets was in substance fulfilled. Accordingly in their worship, as we see from 1 Corinthians 14, each believer was free to edify his fellows by psalm, teaching, revelation, tongue, interpretation, as well as prayer of Eucharist. Whatever limitations expediency came in time to impose on this diffused ministry, the idea involved had, and has, abiding force; and it was not the idea underlying the later distinctions between 'clergy' and 'laity.'" (James Vernon Bartlet, M.A., Ten Epochs of Church History, page 477)
"Worship in the apostolic age was a spontaneous expression of devout feeling. The order of worship was a free copy of the synagogue service. Selections from the Old Testament were read. Expositions of Scripture and spontaneous speaking followed." (George P. Fisher, History of the Christian Church, page 141)
"The meeting described by the apostle (1 Corinthians 14) is not to be taken as something which might be seen only in Corinth but was peculiar to that city; it may be taken as a type of the Christian meeting throughout the Gentile Christian churches; for the apostle, in his suggestions and criticisms continually speaks of what took place throughout all the churches. What cannot fail to strike us in this picture is the untrammeled liberty of the worship, the possibility of every male member of the congregation taking part in the prayers and exhortations, and the consequent responsibility laid on the whole community to see that the service was for edification." (Thomas M. Lindsay, D.D., Principal of Glasgow College of the United Free Church of Scotland, The Church and the Ministry in the Early Centuries, page 48)
"That two or three should thus take part, and all being 'done unto edifying', was, and still should be, a matter for dependence upon, and leading by, the Holy Spirit. No uncontrolled impulse is to be allowed. Gradually, however, clerical power became dominant, and the worship and testimony of a local church was committed to the control of one man, who became known as the 'the minister'. This was an easy way of seeking to regulate difficulties, but it was not God's way. Two wrongs do not make a right. The system of 'the one-man ministry' spread over Christendom and remained general, until many of God's people were awakened to the importance of adhering to New Testament principles and recognizing the prerogatives and claims of the Holy Spirit in the gatherings of a church; they realized the unscripturality of the stifling of the development of spiritual gifts by the appointment of one man to conduct the services. The Lord will have regard in the coming Day of reward to those who, amidst disrepute and criticism, have sought to remain faithful to Him and obedient to His will as revealed in God's Word." (W.E. Vine, M.A. First Corinthians, page 196)
"We understand edification here in its general and original sense, as given to it in St. Paul's writings, as referring to the advancement and development, from its common ground, of the whole church. The edification, in this sense, was the common work of all. Even edification by the Word was not assigned exclusively to one individual; every man who felt the inward call to it might give utterance to the Word in the assembled church." (Dr. Augustus Neander, Ordinary Professor of Theology in the University of Berlin, Church History, Vol. 1, page 251)
"From this (1 Corinthians 14.26) and other passages; it is clear that the upbuilding of the church was not confined then, as now, to one, or at most two, of the congregation; but was the privilege of all the members, and though such a practice is liable to abuse (James 3.1), it is possible that its entire disuse has led to still greater evils obvious to all--'quenching of the Spirit.'" (Robert Young, author of Young's Analytical Concordance)
The Holy Spirit moved Peter to write to the exiles of the Dispersion, "As each has received a gift, employ if for one another, as good stewards of God's grace." (1 Peter 4.10) Would the same Spirit, if writing to us today, change the message to read, "Let each stifle his spiritual gifts, and employ another, as a good steward of God's grace"?
If the apostle Paul wrote to a congregation in Rome in the twentieth century, would he say, "I myself am satisfied about you, my brethren, that you yourselves are full of goodness, filled with all knowledge and able to instruct one another." (Romans 15.14), or would he recommend that they hire a "minister"? Inasmuch as he was satisfied with them, and about them, would he be satisfied with our modern substitution which, while the people love to have it so, makes impossible the functioning of the assembly as Paul outlined it?
When the apostle addressed his first letter to the congregation at Thessalonica, he emphasized the fact of the coming of the Lord, adding, "Therefore encourage one another and build one another up, just as you are doing." (1 Thess.5.11) Is there a better time to exercise the members in building one another up than when all have gathered in one place? This was God's program for the congregation originally. Has he altered it for the present time? Who will affirm that an uninspired man may utilize all of the time appointed for public edification, when an inspired man was not permitted to do so?
The system into which the religious world has fallen has created the greatest "brain drain" in history. It is directly responsible for accumulation of a tremendous mass of unused talent. In many congregations there are brilliant men who are never allowed to share their thinking with the rest of the saints and faithful brethren simply because they are not regarded as being in the clerical caste.
Superintendents of schools, college professors, attorneys, advertising executives, and many others, are doomed to a life of perpetual silence in the public meetings by this system. Men who are invited to address conventions of learned personnel are never invited to share their thinking in the public assembly of the congregations where they attend. Often they are forced to listen to one who invades their professional field in his remarks, although quite ignorant of the subject upon which he professes to speak with authority.
Congregations need to hear the personal testimony of men who are in daily contact with life as it is being lived. Those who teach science in the college classroom are more qualified to speak about the problems raised by modern research than one who never studied the subject. The psychiatrist in the congregation should be more capable of talking about emotional and personality disorders than one whose observation is limited and who has no technical knowledge of the subject.
Why should a congregation not be allowed to share in all of the helpful insights of all of its membership? Why muzzle men who are often more scholarly and qualified than the one who is hired to project the orthodox position week after week? That many are growing weary with the sterility which has resulted is obvious. A reaction is setting in which takes the form of a revolution. In many areas "an underground church" is forming.
This phenomenon is observable when people become tired of meaningless and monotonous ritual, of forms and ceremonies. Small groups begin to meet in homes without benefit of "clergy," and in these cell meetings all are free to speak their honest sentiments and convictions. No one lords it over the others. There is no clergy-laity division. It is apparent that many are hungering and thirsting after righteousness and want to feed themselves.
The royal priesthood should be made to realize that divine rights have been surrendered to, or captured by, a special caste, an incipient clergy. These rights must be returned to the saints, or God's plan of the ages will be nullified as it pertains to our responsibility. By what scriptural authority do men set themselves up, or offer themselves for hire, as the ministers of the congregation?
On what bases do some of the priests claim such exaltation, eminence, enthronement and esteem, over the other regal princes of the priesthood of heaven? Is it by virtue of a more noble birth? Is it the result of superior knowledge conveyed to them by other mortals? Are they composed of a more worthy clay which elevates the fortunate ones thus created to shine as brighter constellations in the Christian galaxy?
Every Christian is a priest! Every Christian is a minister! Every priest of God has a divine right as a minister of God to serve the King of kings and loyal subjects. Every talent and gift must be utilized in God's service. Every man who has the ability to exhort, edify or comfort his brethren must be granted the right to do so. God has placed no pulpit as a throne in the midst of the congregation, to which one man has an exclusive right.
The freedom of the speaker's platform for every loyal capable subject must be asserted, or we must admit that a part of the worship of God belongs to a stipendiary, and in that phase of devotion we can only approach God through human mediators, financially supported by the saints "to perform their ritual duties." Since this is the function of priests (Hebrews 9.6) we will then have a special caste of priests above their fellows, and we will take steps toward Rome.
E. De Pressense has written: "We have already shown that the universal priesthood was only maintained to its full extent in practice, as well as in theory, so long as the redemptive sacrifice of Christ was accepted without reserve as the source of universal salvation. He is the one Priest of the Church only if He truly finished all upon the cross, so that His disciples have but to appropriate His sacrifice by faith, in order to become priests and kings in Him and by Him. If all was not completed on Calvary, if the salvation of man is not a perfected work, then we are still separated from God; we have no free access into his sanctuary, and we seek mediators who may present our offering for us. When Christianity is regarded rather as a new law than as the sovereign manifestation of Divine grace, it leaves us in our impotence, our unworthiness, to our fruitless strivings and our partial aspirations. We are no more kings and priests, we fall back under the yoke of a servile fear. The hierarchy gains by all that men lose of childlike confidence in that infinite mercy which alone renders needless all official mediation between the penitent and God." (The Early Years of Christianity, Volume 4, pages 47,48. Translated by Annie Harwood-Holmden)
