Comments on: Why Everyone Should Wear a Priest’s Collar

By: Jesse Phillips

Jesse Phillips — Fri, 08 Jan 2010 21:20:37 +0000

Love, Love, Love, LOVE LOVE this TRUTH! I believe the body of Christ desperately needs to understand and assimilate this into our practice!

By: Jesse Phillips

Jesse Phillips — Fri, 08 Jan 2010 15:20:37 +0000

Love, Love, Love, LOVE LOVE this TRUTH! I believe the body of Christ desperately needs to understand and assimilate this into our practice!

By: kim

kim — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 04:15:42 +0000

Watch out for Yoders —– either Anabaptists or throwovers to a lesser faith!!

By: Ryan

Ryan — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 00:48:08 +0000

One more thing. I can't say I “completely” disagree. Of course, as Hebrews points out, we are all priests of the New Covenant who are all supposed to offer spiritual sacrifices to God. Instead of getting rid of the offices which Jesus gave through Paul, we should just come to a better understanding and embracing of the lay vocation, without diminishing the beauty of the ordained ministry. Both are equally holy. Both are equally given. Both are equally necessary for the Kingdom of God. And we ought to discern which vocation Jesus gives to us and pray for the grace to accept it with courage and joy.

By: Ryan

Ryan — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 00:40:45 +0000

Wow. I have to say that I completely disagree with this, based on theology and experience, although it makes sense based on our differing experiences (I'm a convert to Catholicism from Lutheranism and Non-denominationalism, I'm 23).

I don't mean to be a constant nag, but how do we deal with the ordained ministers of the New Covenant that are called apostles (cf. Eph. 4:11), elders (Jas. 5:14), bishops (1 Tim. 3:1), and deacons (1 Tim. 3:8ff)? How about in James, for example, when somebody is sick, the elders are called in and not just 'normal laity'? How about the myriad of quotes from the years of the Apostles regarding them being the Bishops and the laity listening to them? What is the meaning of excommunication that the Scriptures talk about?

I believe there is more to hierarchy then some sort of 'un-cool thing of the past'. It's Biblical. Paul himself was an Apostle, a Bishop, who, precisely because he was a pastor, gave commands to people.

Lastly, if what you are saying is true, and much of it is, how do you deal with the following verses in Titus 1?
7 For a bishop, as God's steward, must be blameless; he must not be arrogant or quick-tempered or a drunkard or violent or greedy for gain,
8 but hospitable, a lover of goodness, master of himself, upright, holy, and self-controlled;
9 he must hold firm to the sure word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to confute those who contradict it.
10 For there are many insubordinate men, empty talkers and deceivers, especially the circumcision party;
11 they must be silenced, since they are upsetting whole families by teaching for base gain what they have no right to teach.

Sounds pretty hierarchical to me. Where is that in today's 'modern' trends?

By: Jake Bouma

Jake Bouma — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 20:20:07 +0000

I love you.

By: Justin Wise

Justin Wise — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 17:27:33 +0000

Yes. Exactly. Are we disagreeing?

I am 100% okay with hierarchies in the church being flattened.

By: Jake Bouma

Jake Bouma — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 17:09:47 +0000

Yeah, yeah. I don't think de-institutionalization = no leaders. Instead, de-institutionalization means a significant giving-away of power — and therefore a flattening of the hierarchy which fuels itself with power — that leads to a recovery of leadership among the (formerly) powerless. “Leaders” does not equal “bad”. “Leader who monopolizes power” DOES equal “bad”.

By: Justin Wise

Justin Wise — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 16:57:53 +0000

1. Babylonian Captivity of the Church
2. I see your line of reasoning. Maybe we should be asking the question, "Is/should the church be an 'institution' at all?" In other words, did Jesus ever intend for his Body to be an institution?

I don't think the answer is no leadership at all. That's chaos. And impossible. (The dirty little secret with "no leadership" is that there actually is leadership. Someone had to lead the decision to have no leadership.)

It's clear from Scripture that God intends to have leaders for his people. What I think Yoder is saying, and I agree with, is that the community of believers has a deeper role in leading the local church than they currently possess. I don't think having leaders is tantamount to being institutionalized.

By: Jake Bouma

Jake Bouma — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 16:53:51 +0000

I think they point to that, too! And I appreciate the “call to arms” as well, BUT I think it does Yoder injustice to use that passage for something other than its intended message… or to water it down. It seems to me that if we take Yoder seriously, we must do nothing other than seriously consider the consequences of these words (and the rest of his work in this book and elsewhere), which seem to be de-institutionalization.