There are different tasks in the church and there is a need for some sort of leadership. The Acts give the impression that the apostles/missionaries (apostle in the sense of someone sent) appointed ‘elders’ as the leaders of a local church they had started. According to what I have read, the use of the names ‘presbyteros’ and ‘episkopos’ was often mixed, both names could be used from the same persons (we could call them ‘elders’). That seemed to be the situation also in Rome. Later the use of the titles ‘presbyteros’ and ‘episkopos’ separated, and the leadership of local churches turned from the joint leadership of elders to the leadership of a single head, with the title ‘episkopos’ (overseer/bishop). This lead stepwise to the current system of bishops and priest, and in some denominations, to a hierarchy with additional ‘top’ titles.
It could be said that there is nothing intrinsically wrong in having leading bishops and priests. The problems start if it is forgotten that in Christ, we believers are all priests. Appointed bishops and priests differ only in the respect that they have been given the responsibility to lead (shepherd) the congregation/church. Otherwise, all members of the church should be viewed equal in front of God, and it should be fully acceptable that any member of the church can for example, distribute the Holy Communion or baptize. For the sake of unity in the congregation, it is often expected that baptisms happen with the consent of the leader but even that is more of a practical guideline than a doctrinal issue. There is nothing holier in a church than the members of Christ, the believers.
I know that some denominations teach in a different way but I assume that most pentecostal churches would agree with the above. As this thread discusses especially about communication with pentecostals, that needs to be remembered.
Another matter is that many pentecostals are not very doctrinal, they are more interested about the acts and guidance of the Holy Spirit today than what theologians ponder in their chambers or what kind of decisions church councils have made. They keep the biblical teachings as they understand them but rely more on what the Holy Spirit opens from the scriptures than what theologians think about the texts.
Although that may describe many pentecostals, a growing proportion of pentecostals are seriously interested about proper interpretation of the scriptures and theology. A growing proportion of leaders have gone through a theological seminar and are therefore better equipped to deal with theological questions.
Quite possibly because they don’t see many in non-pentecostal churches, where there’s just one ox or mule doing all the talking. In the catholic charismatic renewal prayer meetings, a group of elders monitored the course of a two or three hour gathering of community “regulars” only a very few of whom were prophets or teachers or musicians, prophets encouraged and very rarely predicted specific events, and the only time one spoke of “the importance of venerating my mother” was when the guy in the raincoat from the library came. No community regular prophesied or taught “soul sleep” or young earth creationism or evolution or Einstein’s relativity or Quantum physics. Just words of balm for the broken and wounded and teaching for defective saints and exiles. Prayer petitions were welcomed from anyone, and there were no "teaching moments’ for the littlest children “up front” or “oral theological treatises” or debates. And yet, there was order and flow. And any “word in tongues” that was spoken to the whole community in tongues was interpreted or rang false and everyone knew it.
In the charismatic community that I was part of, every weekly prayer meeting was a revival meeting; every bi-weekly covenanted prayer meeting was communal event, until the fans of “closed communion” interfered and ended interdenominational Communion.
The only time everybody in the community was together more than one day was when they went on a three or more day retreat at some convent or monastery.
I agree with almost everything you wrote, although I would like to point out that only some charismatic/Pentecostals say all believers should speak in tongues and that the gift of tongues is evidence of salvation. Others recognize the diversity of gifts.
In Acts 1, Jesus said “But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you, and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth.”
This indicates the evidence of the Holy Spirit is power to be a witness.
I had a discussion about this with a Church of God pastor. I almost had to tie him up to get him to admit Billy Graham was filled with the Spirit. Graham certainly had power to be a witness.
Another error that I have seen in charismatic churches is the assertion that God heals all sick people who have enough faith. One pastor had a difficult time when his kids asked him to pray for the resurrection of their dead family dog.
True in the sense that the word ‘revival’ is a late invention, and the Spirit is not an author of disorder. I also agree that the Holy Spirit can use any believer, even those that do not have any special gift. As Paul wrote,
“When you assemble, each one has a psalm, has a revelation, has a tongue, has an interpretation. … For you can all prophesy one by one, so that all may learn and all be exhorted …” (! Corinthians 14:26-33).
The word ‘revival’ is perhaps not the best possible but I use it because I do not have a better word to describe a period when the Holy Spirit acts in a special way, so that great numbers of people turn towards God and start to follow Jesus in their life. These special periods are often associated with an unusually large number of happenings we could call miracles, like sudden healings of lame, deaf or otherwise handicapped or sick people. Some call it ‘revival’, some ‘awakening’, or some other term that is not perfect but is recognized by most believers.
The Spirit can choose someone to a position or give ‘gifts’ to any people. The revivals are mostly (typically?) phenomena where no appointed person is controlling what the Spirit does. Often there is someone who is used in a special way but even he/she is not controlling the overall situation. The churches try to guide the wild ‘spiritual babies’ towards a more balanced way of Christian life after they have started to follow Jesus but the revival is not controlled by humans. After humans try to take a stronger control of what happens, often because there is also some disorder or spread of unwanted teachings at the same time, the revival usually ends.
Edit:
I use the words ‘mostly’, ‘often’, ‘usually’ because I have not found strict rules in how the Spirit acts. He does what He does, what He did during past time periods or events does not restrict Him in any way. If we want to be part of what the Spirit does, we need to be quite open and flexible to something that may go beyond any borders and rules we have erected.
Yes. Just to say this is also my reading of the history of ecclesiastical offices within the church–that a more rigid hierarchy above “elders” was a development over time and not present in the first churches. And, Anabaptists/Mennonites would be another group that strives to practice the priesthood of all believers, in the way you describe.
Technically, what it indicates is that the Holy Spirit witnesses to Jesus of Nazareth, the crucified, resurrected, and ascended Christ, … not to Islam’s Mohammad, nor to Israel’s Torah, nor to Bahai’i’s "Bahu’allah, nor to Guatama Buddha, nor to the Tao Te Ching, nor to Brahma nor any Hindu god. “By no other name under heaven …”
Keep in mind that the priesthood of all believers was also the case in the Old Testament and is plural: no one by themselves is a priest under this concept, we are all priests together. This is one hefty reason for no “solo Christians”; we must be together and work together for the priesthood to be in action.
And since the Old Testament had three priesthoods distinct from the priesthood of all believers, a special priesthood in the New Testament is not excluded.
We can see it emerging in the New Testament but it’s not fully developed. Roman Catholics would like us to believe that the entire hierarchy was in place once Peter was bishop in Rome, but we know that the Roman church had multiple bishops when Peter was there and for quite some time afterwards.
But development wasn’t always improvement. An example that is one of my pet peeves is one aspect of how Rome came to impose domination on other churches in the west: from ancient times it was the Christians in a city who selected their new bishop, not anyone else, but through various mechanisms Rome took to itself the authority to appoint bishops, thus building a human hierarchy wielding secular as well as religious power. I think that if the ancient tradition hadn’t been changed by Rome there’s a fair chance the Reformation might not have been needed as different schools of theology and different liturgies would have provided a tension that made Rome’s autocratic approach to ecclesiology impossible or at least very, very difficult.
That request is all too common; I’ve known two pastors ‘cornered’ that way by their kids.
“God heals all” is a very cruel doctrine because He actually doesn’t, and when He doesn’t the common response is to condemn the unhealed person for lack of faith.
I regard myself as an interesting example: I got prayed over for getting rid of bipolar disorder and PTSD. Since then I have never had another panic attack, but I still get anxiety attacks (ignore those who say there’s no difference!) which is enough that some have told me I lacked faith for full healing – instead of rejoicing for what there was!
This is getting a bit off topic for the thread as its drifting into pure theology, but if we’re talking OT, I’d say from the very first in Genesis, humans are given the role of God’s “image-bearers” to creation, i.e., each, equally, male and female, are to function as priests-kings on earth. And “pre-fall” we, as royal priests, are portrayed in the text as having direct access to God, without a need for an intermediary performing a ritual. In the NT, with Jesus now acting as our one and only intermediary priest (see the book of Hebrews), we humans again have direct access to God, through Him, without the need for other human priests. This is not a question of living as a solitary Christian–of course, believers are supposed to function in community with others. But it is a question of the method of one’s access to God. So, I’m not sure what you mean about a “special priesthood” in the New Covenant. Do you mean a subset of special human mediators is still required? I’d disagree with that.
I sure would too, but I don’t think that is what he is saying. We definitely have direct access – boldly and confidently, to echo Paul.
But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God’s special possession, that you may declare the praises of him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light. 1 Peter 2:9
The essential difference between the Old Testament priesthood and that of the New is that the Old Testament priest stands in the place of a Messiah who has not yet come while that of the New stands in the place of a Messiah Who has come.
That doesn’t sound like a lot but the difference is huge. One aspect of Messiah is to stand before God for the people even as he stands before the people for God, and in the Old Testament it was always the priest who did that. But in the New Covenant, in terms of the first function the most the priest need do is speak for all in prayer that there may be an “Amen”, while in the second function he sometimes speaks for God to the people but also critically serves as a stand-in; as one church Father put it, the New Testament priest is nothing in himself, he is but hands and a mouth on loan to Christ that when those are needed Christ’s words may come from a human voice once again.
Interestingly I saw a critique of the Roman liturgy by an Orthodox priest who accused Rome of making the priest more of a mediator than should be, not merely a functional mediator but an effective one – ironic given that these days if anything the Roman liturgy tones things down compared to the east! But given the theology of a special priesthood that can be drawn from the scriptures and the early Fathers, I’d say both have gone over the line.
Hmm…personally, I don’t base my doctrine/practice about “priests” on what some of the early Fathers may have written after second century, but on the view presented in scripture itself. As @knor mentioned above, priests (either as “mediators” or as “functional stand-ins” as you refer to them above) is a historic accretion to the two church offices of “elder” and “deacon” mentioned in scripture. The early Fathers may have been correct in some of their views, but were only human, and so I think their theology was misplaced in others. And I just don’t see any indication of a set-apart group of mediators/stand-ins before God indicated in the NT.
Charasmatics and pentecostals are getting a pretty good black eye in this topic – much of which is admittedly deserved. And perhaps my next question is pivoting away from the original question on talking to pentecostals about origins and evolution. Nevertheless, what is the faithful disciple of Christ to do with respect to 1 Cor. 14:1 where Paul admonishes pursut of “spiritual gifts … especially that you may prophesy”? We do not have any explicit scriptures to suggest the outpouring of the spirit was temporary or that it would cease. Many protestants cling and adhere to a spiritual “rebirth” as cited in John 3. We frequently hear preaching about pursuit of the non-threatening gifts of the spirit such as wisdom, understanding, knowledge, piety and fear of God, while avoiding the more controversial gifts of toungues and prophesy.
Before we talk to pentecostals about origins and evolution, shouldn’t we also know how to answer (or at least have an answer to) the question of whether the miraculous gifts of the spirit ceased with the generation of first apostles or whether it continues to this day? Do scriptures command us to go to a well in faith despite the knowledge that the prior 1,000 trips resulted in no water? When can we effectively cease imploring God to perform miracles in our lives?
Priesthood is inherent in any action carried out by a human to accomplish something God does. So unless Baptism is an empty ritual, anyone who performs a baptism is a priest: the person does the actions, but God instills the substance. The same is true of the Eucharist, and as I understand the history it was the celebration of the Eucharist that pulled in the ancient Mediterranean concept of a priest and attached it to the biblical concept of an elder. Really it boils down to whether what most Christians have called sacraments are merely empty rituals or not.
Both historical data and modern experience indicate that the gifts didn’t cease, historically because of the records I referenced where churches had clergy whose offices match at least some of the gifts, and modern experience such as speaking in tongues then an interpretation is given that gets affirmed by several people or someone suddenly knowing something that couldn’t possibly have been known by normal means.
Over against this is something that many biblical scholars have noted, that miracles seem to increase drastically when some redemptive event is happening, e.g. the Exodus and the Incarnation. I’m clueless how to fit there two things together, though [of course one explanation is that faith is just weaker these days].
Hmm… I’d disagree with your definition of a priest as “a human accomplishing something that God does”. Rather, I see the function of priesthood in the OT as to “represent the people before God” and to “communicate God to the people” in a situation where the common people could not access God directly. Priests in the OT were designated mediators of the divine, but nothing they themselves did “accomplished” anything in a real sense. It even says in the OT that sacrifices per se (the ritual) didn’t accomplish what God really wanted.
It is this fundamental role of a priest as a human mediator for other humans that I see being abolished in the New Covenant, as all believers are granted direct access to "come boldly before the throne". In my tradition, any believer can conduct baptisms (and serve the Eucharist) for any other believer. i.e., mediation of sacraments by a designated class of holy-humans is not necessary. But the fact that denominations such as mine regard the sacraments as symbols certainly does not mean that we see them as just an “empty” practice to be taken lightly! That is making a false equivalence.
best,
K.
Hi klw, you explained that very well, my beliefs align with your post.
Yes it states in the Bible OT that the sacrifices are a temporary measure for the forgiveness of sins that One is coming who will replace the sacrifice of animals for the permanent forgiveness of sins, and as we all know He has accomplished that, thus the sin nature that we are all born into right back to the federal head of humanity (Adam) is forgiven and we are purified and aligned with God’s Holy nature. We all fall short from time to time, at least I know I do. But His love picks us up again. Oh wretched sinner that i am!
All believers that accept that Jesus died on the cross as full payment for their sins, are forgiven by our gracious Lord. The sacrament of Holy Communion is a command of Jesus, and only ever taken with a sincere heart, completely honest as we stand in remembrance of what our wonderful creator Jesus has done for us all.
All the best,
jon