Do we need priest?

Background:. While listening on a sermon based on the reading from 1 Peter 2:1-12, the Vicar told us that we didn’t really need vicars, because we are all called to be members of the Holy Preisthood. He also went on to say that Baptists have a better graps of this than anyone.

This annoyed me, but I can see the poing. Perhaps that’s just an example of Church indocrtrination. There is call for all people to be members of the Holy Preisthood, as was once given to the tribe of Levi in the Old Testament. This was then expanded to be all the people of God. John Calvin said something similar when he arranged his churches, saying that the important thing was that the Word of God was being preached truly.

So, then, anyone is called to be a member of this Holy Preisthood, and the only requirement for membership is the moving of the Holy Spirit. They, by being preists, are able to administer all the sacraments, to perform Marriages, Baptisms, and so on. In today’s world, of course, those sacraments that have a legal edge such as Marriages and Deaths require a registered person, so for the sake of this discussion we’re just going to take those sacraments that are only “religious rituals”, such as the communion, baptism and the like.

The thurs of the argument put forward seemed to point to an ailing church, and saying that when it fails, (it may have been if, but the thrust seemed to be when), there will be no more vicars, and so how will a faithful congregation be able to consecrate the bread and the wine? the early churches didn’t require vicars, indeed, the position didn’t exsist in the begning. Churches were just a collection of faithful people, trying to honour the death of their Massiah. If it was ok for them, then why do we need Vicars? and, conversly, if we need Vicars, does that mean that all those churches that allow lay people to bless and administer the sacrament are not partaking in a true communion? Or those churches that do not have a line of ascendancy, as is claimed by the Anglicans and Catholics all the way back to Peter, are not truly Holy, or partaking in Holy Communion?

Instinctivly, I know that there needs to be Vicars. I also appreciate that there need to be Baptist Pastors. So what we have, then, is people called by God, and “set appart” by God (a frase you learn as you going through Anglican Selection) for this office. The strong thing that I’ve seen from my interactions with the Baptists, and from within my own tradition is that there must be a sense of calling to the role. This calling is then discerned either by elders (as in the case of the Baptists), or by other Vicars and lay people (as in the case of Anglicans). So is this the “Royal Preisthood” to which Peter says everyone is called too? I don’t think so, at least, perhaps, not anymore. The description that was given in the Sermon, was of anyone who thought that God was calling them to administer the sacrament would simply step forward and do it. The implication seemed to be that it wouldn’t be the same person over and over, and this seemed rather reminicent of what I know of the Quakers. That seems all well and good, but for some reason doesn’t seem to work for me. I have said in other places that I am Christian by accident of Birth, and I would guess, then that I’m also Anglican by accident of Birth. Perhaps the reason that I feel, instinctivly, that there needs to be Vicars is because that’s what I’m used too, perhaps from another tradition, I would be training to be a Pastor, or, perhaps, a Rabbi. I am interperating what I belive to be my Calling from God through a lense coloured by my life and perceptions, as I guess God has intended it.

It doesn’t really explain why it annoyed me. I think it was the Hypocrisy that probably wound me up. Here was a Vicar, standing in front of the congregation saying that all of them were able to do the job he was doing, and this was something that he strongly believed, and the end of the Sermon didn’t come with his resignation. By putting on the Dog Collar, you accept that you believe in the office for which you stand. Yes, you will disagree with some of the doctrines and dogmas of the Church, but you still, intrinsically, belive in the Church herself. If not, then your not an Anglican (or Catholic etc.), so you have then stepped into the realms of hypocrisy. This then means that you are making a mockery of the entire system. I have heard people speak out against doctrines, against the way the church responds to situations, against the political and structural elements inside the church, but I don’t think I’ve every heard anyone speak out against the church itself.

Is it, perhaps, an element of wounded pride? after all the struggle and hard work, and all the effort that I will need to put in over the next 5 years to be told that it’s all unecesssary, does that shake my pride at the achievemnts that I’ve made so far, at my view of self-worth? does it challenge my world view that those that are called are in some, undescribable way, slightly……different from everyone else? I suppose I havn’t really explored the idea of “different”, having simply accepted the term “set appart by God” as being a sufficent description. We’re not better than anyone else, we’re not, in some way, more “elect” than anyone else. It’s just the calling that God has given us, in the same way some are called to be Doctors, Teachers, Parents, Mechanics, Shop assistants, and so on. I suppose, than if everyone is also defacto called to this preisthood, then my calling is irrelevant. That would be an entire reflection in and of itself. I don’t think my calling is irrelevant, and I think at this stage, that kind of thinking (that my calling may be irrelevant) may seriously destabalize my world view.

There still seems to be one last thing. It’s the idea of what happens during the communion (or any of the other sacraments, but this is the one everyone is familiar with). Either it’s just someone saying some words over some bread and wine as a memorial to Jesus, or the bread and wine is blessed, and in some way becomes a symbol of Jesus’ presence and glory hear on earth as a continuing sign of his sacrifice for us (or something along those lines.). If you believe the former, than I would guess that anyone could do it. They are just words, just rememberence. If, however, you believe the latter, then it follows that the person that is being the channel for the communion must have the spirit moving in them and through them. Is this something that everyone can do? I’m not sure they can.

But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God’s own people,…..

It says in 1 Peter 2. Does he mean here preisthood as we understand it today? I don’t know. Reason, however, tells me that he does not. We are all called by God to administer his Word in some way, either through our lives, our example, the things we do in Church, the way we are in our daily lives, the way we simply follow the commandment about being good to one another. This, to me, is the “Royal Preisthood” that Peter talks about.

Suffice to say that the preacher did not follow his Sermon with a surprise resignation. I don’t know if what I’ve picked out of the sermon was what he intended. I don’t know if what he intended to preach was about the death of the Anglican Church, it’s dwinding numbers, and the fact that in his mind the world doesn’t need Vicars.

That is, however, what I left with. If that summary of his sermon is not what he intended, then it highlights the danger of wrighting sermons without trying to look at them from the outside. Sometimes people arn’t on your train of thought, and their train head off a different way to yours. If it is what he intended, then I think the lesson I have learned is that there are somethings you never share in a sermon.

~BX