Army of Priests

The following seven suppositions briefly outline what I believe about Church. There is a lot of (potentially controversial) material in the following points:

1. The Church (which is Christians) exists to present itself as a complete, pure, and humble bride before God.

I propose that the Church (which is merely the plural form of “Christian”) is better understood as an organism (similar to a colony of ants) then an organisation. I believe that this organism is destined to become a perfect community as its members become perfect. I believe that the gospel is one not only of salvation but also of transformation and that this transformation from sinner to saint of individual Christians is central to the purpose of Church as a whole. In essence I believe Church exists to help Christians be transformed, and not merely saved. I believe that the end result of this transformation is a perfect new creation similar to what existed before the fall.

2. Radical Christians are self reproducing.

“Radical Christian” is the term I use to describe a Christian who puts God’s purposes before their own. (That is, they live to serve God and are not just a Christian for the sake of their salvation. In essence, a Radical Christian makes sacrifice a part of their walk with God and is a Christian who is being transformed.) I propose that Radical Christians are self reproducing without the aid of programs in that: 1) A Radical Christian will seek to spread the gospel with or without help from an organisation and 2) A Radical Christian will seek to grow and support other Christians. Not only are Radical Christians at the core of my vision for Church change, they are also the goal of it.

3. Radical Christians seek strong relationships. Strong relationships produce radical Christians.

I believe that Radical Christians will naturally seek out strong relationships. Not all personalities are conductive to truly intimate relationships, but I do believe that Radical Christians will place authenticity with others above acceptance by others. In fact, I propose that this type of relationship is essential for the growth of Radical Christians. These types of relationships encompass the idea of a “shared Christian walk” (growing in faith together).

4. It is my personal responsibility as a priest to build up the people around me.

I propose that people with direct access to God (aka Christians) have a responsibility to be a priest to the people around them. I do not believe that the work of building up Christians in the faith is the work of the clergy. I do believe that every Christian has a personal responsibility to care for, carry the burdens of, and nurture each other. I believe that this can take a variety of different forms that aren’t all (or cannot be) covered by traditional Church programs.

5. Everything I do affects the people that know me.

I propose that my every action has an influence on the people that know me. I believe that as an example of the transforming power of the gospel (which every Christian should be) that my life becomes the good news and not just the bearer of it. I believe I am responsible for what I do or do not do. I suggest that my personal walk with God (personal prayer, reading the bible, etc) will affect the people I know as it builds me in the faith.

6. God will use the ordinary to do the extraordinary through his unique gifts.

I propose that God has given the potential to “make a difference” to every Christian. I suggest that there is no such thing as a “super Christian” (i.e. I suggest that a pastor, for instance, has no more potential then a layman). I also suggest that most traditional Churches prevent Christians from reaching their potential by 1) allowing people to be lost in the congregation, 2) making a distinction between Clergy and Laity, and 3) not building relationships that nurture their members.

7. Love is the only eternal structure.

I propose that love becomes a form of Church structure as it influences the interactions of Christians. I propose that Church buildings, organisations, programs, sermons, and music are temporary, but that this “structure” of love is fundamental to the Church as an organism and will remain forever. Therefore, I believe that love between Christians (and to non-Christians) is far more important then buildings, organisations, programs, sermons, and music. I believe that our focus on programs can interfere with our love for each other. I also believe that love shown by God and Christians is the driving force of the transforming power of the gospel and hence a core part of the purpose of Church.

First off, on a personal note, with the start of university I have become very busy and may struggle to produce these postings on a regular basis. I am also heavily involved in missionary work on campus which is facing both persecution and success. I would appreciate prayer for our work.

The modern church, which we shall call the “clergy driven” church looks alot like this:

In a clergy driven church the clergy are responsible for all the “services” that church supplies. That is, the clergy run the worship, give the sermons, do the praying, the counselling, the evangelising, and generally make all the decisions. The laypeople receive all the churches services via interaction with the clergy and have little need for each other provided that they support the clergy (that is the church will continue to run even if its members fail to relate with each other – as demonstrated by many churches today). The church service is the result of years of testing how to best project the clergy’s services over a large number of people. This makes sense, as a large number of people are required to support the clergy.

If you want evidence of this consider your typical Sunday Service. The large congregation sit all facing the front of the church whilst a considerably smaller group of people administer the service from the front. During worship the greater congregation follows the lead of the smaller worship group. The congregation have no say in what is sung, or how it is sung. During announcements or communion the greater congregation again listens to a smaller group, usually one. And during the centrepiece of the Sunday service, the sermon, a single person is disseminating the teaching “service” to the rest of the congregation. It is quite possible to attend church without talking to a single person. Interaction between members of the congregation is usually limited to a pitiful ten minute timeslot or before or after the service when officially the meeting is yet to start or has ended.

In order to counteract this many churches have bible talks or small groups. Whilst this is a step in the right direction, they are usually an add-on and are not truly central to the church’s operations.

Whilst the clergy driven church has been seeing lives saved for thousands of years, it falls short of the churches potential and detracts from some of the central tenets of our beliefs. Over the next few posts we shall examine 12 problems with clergy driven churches (I wrote these a while ago which make my work load easier as well).

The priesthood of all believers

In the Old Testament, the Jews could not directly relate with God. Instead they worshiped via a middle man who was the priesthood. The New Testament not only restored the ability for all men to have a personal relationship with God, it also restored the ability for all men to act on his behalf. Unfortunately the Catholic Church saw the loss of this significant change. The reformation would latter restore our direct relationship with God, but it failed to restore our place as workers of him. As such we have direct communication with God, but the clergy still does all the work!

The New Testament church is not about a large group of people supporting some small group of gifted men of God. This is Old Testament thinking. In the New Testament we are all gifted men of God! The New Testament is about empowering every believer in the body of Christ. It is about every believer playing and equal part, every believer having equal importance. Unfortunately this is not the case today. When the pastor of a church is given the bulk of the meeting’s time and a lowly member none, this is inequality – unfair to both the pastor and the congregation.

It is true that there are leaders, there are preachers, there are teachers, there are apostles, and there are pastors. But these positions should be of no more importance as helpers, or givers, or encouragers, or of prayers. (Why is it that a preacher can receive a standing ovation yet an elderly woman who has provided meals to the single mother next door receives none?) What’s more, these gifts are distributed among all God’s people. Not just the clergy! Why is it then that in the Sunday Service, the centre of the modern church, that the clergy are the only ones exercising their gifts for the benefit of the others?

This issue will become clearer as it reveals itself as the root of many other problems.

Waste of potential

The inability of the congregation to use their gifts results in a huge loss of potential for the church! Not only this, but each person has experiences and knowledge that can help people or provide a different perspective on any topic. However, it is very rare, and always rude, for any member of the congregation to offer their comments during a sermon. They cannot share their experiences, or their knowledge. This is God’s knowledge that he has given them! But they are required to remain silent unless they are given permission (ordained) by the church to express what God has given them.

Why do we do this? Why are we gagging God? What if God wanted to use the lowliest member of the church, the one with poor clothes that always stank? Could he stand up and speak, and how would he be received? What if God intended to change people’s lives with his words?

It is not enough to expect people to give “words of knowledge” during an allocated time in the church meeting. Imagine if I were to stand up and give this as a speech! Not only that, but many of God’s people are introverted, they can’t stand up before a hundred, but they do have things which are important to say. We must accommodate these people!

I cannot imagine how many people could have been saved, or how many lives could have been changed, if only God had been allowed to use any believer he saw fit for the task at hand.