February 19, 2004

priesthood of all believers

...In short, the biblically-centered doctrine of the priesthood of all believers affirms: (1) every person have the privilege of approaching God himself or herself without the need of a human intermediary, and (2) every person has equal access to the Bible. This access gives every person the right to interpretation led by the Holy Spirit. And therefore, no authority can force or presume to compel submission to his or her interpretation or belief by another believer.
There seems to be a limit to this.
Growing out of the priesthood of the believer doctrine is the matter of individual responsibility. Freedom always brings responsibility.

We are not free to interpret scripture based on wild tangents or our own preconceived ideas. A proper understanding of the priesthood of all believers demands that believers interpret the Bible in the context of fellowship to which they are related and the leadership and the Holy Spirit.

Indeed, the priesthood of all believers doctrine is not license to be anything, to say anything, or to do anything. It is the essense to being responsible to God and God alone.


The writers of this pamphlet were actively fighting a very conservative element in Southern Baptist polity. A group of more fundamentalist believers had set up a committee to decide what it was Baptists would believe and just who could then represent Baptists in the pulpit, mission field and the class room. "Individual competency under God in all matters of religion" did not seem to be what they were after. So, the more moderate believers in states like Virginia issued statements like this one.

What is interesting to me is the tightrope they are walking. I do like the point that community enters into interpretation. This is not something that we do alone. To me that is essential. However, the final word on interpretation is still between God and the believer. Thus, we argue, we disagree, we squabble...and we split off forming new congregations and denominations. Sometimes this is horribly painful. Nevertheless, it is part of the interpretive process. Sin abounds. No one believer is ever perfect or "wholly right." No creed can truly stand as authority. Only the community, the congregation has authority, under God and with the intercession of the Holy Spirit, to iterpret scripture in the face of history and tradition.

Posted by tripp at February 19, 2004 07:30 AM
Comments

Tripp:

"However, the final word on interpretation is still between God and the believer. Thus, we argue, we disagree, we squabble...and we split off forming new congregations and denominations. Sometimes this is horribly painful. Nevertheless, it is part of the interpretive process. Sin abounds. No one believer is ever perfect or 'wholly right.' No creed can truly stand as authority."

So, then, we have no real hope of knowing the mind of God?

And how does the above square with this?:

"Only the community, the congregation has authority, under God and with the intercession of the Holy Spirit, to iterpret scripture in the face of history and tradition."

Posted by: Clifton D. Healy at February 20, 2004 09:11 AM

Through scripture and interpretation in the midst of community we can know the mind of Christ...but never in the entirety. This is like Karl was talking about on his blog...and Paul talks about...full and yet not, dglass darkly.

You cannot ever know the mind of God completely. If you can contain the mind of God in your thoughts, then God is smaller than we are. Since this is clearly not the case, how then does one ever know the mind of God completely?

Posted by: Tripp at February 20, 2004 09:22 AM

I don't suppose, since the Church teaches one cannot, that we can know the mind of God completely. The rich apophatic tradition of the Church is an undeniably important and essential aspect of Christian thought.

But if it is the case, as the pamphlet suggests, and with which I take you to be in sympathy, that each of us is our own authority, how does one arbitrate between Arius and Athanasius?

You would say, based on your response and what you put in your original entry, the community. But if each community is as autonomous as the pamphlet suggests, the question hasn't been answered so much as pushed back. How does one arbitrate between Rome and Geneva? (Or, for that matter, Rome and Constantinople and Wittenburg?)

Posted by: Clifton D. Healy at February 20, 2004 01:42 PM

God arbitrates. No human, save Christ, can arbitrate. The community is the sum of the arbitration.

And, yes, I am in sympathy. I also recognise that this pamphlet was in response to a political situation within the denomination. It is not a clearly wrought as it ought.

Posted by: Tripp at February 20, 2004 04:37 PM