The Priesthood of All Believers
by Dr. Jerry Sutton Vol. XI, No. 1, January 1998
In 1988, the Southern Baptist Convention meeting in San Antonio adopted a resolution, "On the Priesthood of the Believer." Its first "resolved" clause affirmed "its belief in the biblical doctrine of the Priesthood of the Believer (I Peter 2:9 and Revelation 1:6)."
Although the proper purview of this doctrine should be the doctrine of the priesthood of all believers, Herschel Hobbs' Committee which formulated the 1963 Baptist Faith and Message chose the singular "priesthood of the believer" for its preface. And the Convention adopted the resolution with Hobbs' construct in 1963 and the 1988 Convention reaffirmed the same.
Laying aside the squabbles over singular versus plural, the real issues for us are (1) what does Scripture teach, (2) what is the historical development, (3) what are the Baptist distinctives, and (4) what is the contemporary importance of the doctrine. Permit me to offer a simple overview of these issues.
The Biblical Basis
The Bible gives only a small reference to our doctrine. It first appears in Exodus 19:5-6, where the Lord has gathered together His now free people at the base of the mountain in the wilderness of Sinai. God, speaking through Moses says:
Now, therefore, if you will indeed obey My voice and keep My covenant, then you shall be a special treasure to Me above all people; for all the earth is mine.
And you shall be to Me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.
Scripture gives no definitions to the imagery of "a kingdom of priests" or "holy nation." Yet, common sense tells us that what priests were to Israel, Israel would be to the world.
Priestly responsibilities principally focused on (1) sacrifice, (2) intercession, and (3) proclamation. Simply put, Israel was called to mediate God's Word and work to the world - to be a light to the nations (Is. 42:6).
The New Testament picks up the imagery in two primary references. Peter's first epistle says this:
Coming to Him as to a living stone, rejected indeed by men, but chosen by God and precious, you also, are being built up a spiritual house, a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ (2:4-5). But you are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, His own special people, that you may proclaim the praises of Him who called you out of darkness into His marvelous light; who once were not a people but are now the people of God, who had not obtained mercy but now have obtained mercy (2:9-10).
In the introduction of Revelation, the Apostle John wrote, and Jesus Christ has made us kings and priests to His God and Father, to Him be glory and dominion forever and ever (Rev. 1:6).
From these references which should be supplemented with passages like Romans 12 and Hebrews 10, we draw these conclusions from the Biblical material:
1. God's call and commission to Israel was given to the church (see Matthew 21:43);
2. The priesthood is for each Christian;
3. The priesthood is to offer up spiritual sacrifices;
4. The priesthood is to proclaim the praises of the Lord;
5. The kingdom of priests stands in contrast to those outside the kingdom who have not yet experienced the mercy of God.
A key concept stemming from this is the believer's privilege wherein he or she has direct access to God with no mediator other than the Lord Jesus who is our Great High Priest (Heb.2:17; 3:1 et al), and the one and only mediator between God and mankind (I Tim. 2:5).
Historical Development
Early on, the church moved away from the working model of all Christians being "priests" to a dichotomy between clergy and laity with its accompanying distortions. For example, the priests mediated grace by means of the sacraments. Over hundreds of years this produced an anemic church often intimidated, manipulated, and dominated by either the state or unscrupulous clerics. It was partially in response to this oppressive state of affairs that the Reformation burst on the scene in the early sixteenth century.
Martin Luther, who was the catalyst for the Reformation, made much of the concept of "the priesthood of all believers."
William L. Pitt categorized Luther's teaching on this subject in two emphases. The first stresses the rejection of the sacerdotal hierarchy of the church, allowing individual access to God and the personal right to interpret Scripture for oneself. The second emphasizes the corporate dimension of service to fellow humans, ministering in Christ's behalf in all walks of life. [Basden, ed., p. 208]
In time, the Pietists picked up on this emphasis, as well as the Baptists. Nonetheless, it was Luther who placed it back into the theological landscape.
Baptist Distinctives
In his Convention Press volume, The Doctrine of the Priesthood of Believers, Walter Shurden, writing from the perspective of the doctrine (first person) and about its prominence said, "You have a difficult time agreeing on the precise language for describing your single most distinguishing denominational distinctive."
Whereas E. Y. Mullins, and in turn Hobbs, argued for "Soul Competency" being the cornerstone of Baptist theology and identity (see Hobbs & Mullins, The Axioms of Religion, revised), and the priesthood of all believers being a derived and corollary doctrine from that; Shurden stated "I think it is the other way around." Shurden argues his case that the Priesthood of all Believers is the cardinal doctrine of Southern Baptists. The question is, was Shurden accurate in his assessment?
True, many Baptists have advocated the principles articulated by Luther. Baptist forefathers like Isaac Backus and John Leland used priesthood of believers to plead for a separation of church and state. Baptists like John L. Dagg, E. C. Dargan, and E. Y. Mullins, not to mention Hobbs, were strong advocates of the doctrine. In his essay, "The Priesthood of All Believers," Reggie McNeal pointed out that the doctrine often suffered what might be identified as cultural distortions, like "individualism", and "democratization", and privilege over responsibility in emphases [Basden, ed. p. 213]. I like Timothy George's assessment that "it really has more to do with a Christian's service than his status" [Criswell Theological Review, Spring '89, p.292].
One question is in order. Is it the cornerstone that some have argued it is? The 1988 Resolution pointed out that "none of the five writing systematic theologians in Southern Baptist History (Dagg, Boyce, Mullins, Conner, and Moody) have given more than passing reference to the doctrine of the Priesthood of the Believer in their systematic theologies. McNeal concedes in his essay that this "first premise is technically correct," but then proceeds to point out the abundant literature. The author's point in the resolution was not to say that the doctrine was not present, but rather not prominent. If it is so vital to Baptist theology, why did the writing theologians fail to give it more than passing reference in what attempted to be balanced and systematic treatises on revealed truth as Baptists have understood it?
Contemporary Importance
During the 1988 era, when tensions were so exceedingly high and the direction and self-definition of the SBC was still up for grabs, so to speak, the priesthood doctrine suddenly took on an unusual prominence. Actually, it followed the Doctrine of the Laity and Shared Ministry emphases, all three of which seemed to hammer away at the leadership role of the Pastor. For example, without naming pastors as such, Shurden's doctrinal persona says, "I refuse to knuckle under to an autocracy of professionals... I object to power and privilege being concentrated in the hands of an elite few. I demand responsible participation in church life as well as in salvation (p.11)." He goes on to argue that "The equality among believers in the New Testament gave way to hierarchy, the domination of the priests over the laity (p.16)" implying that this might still be the practice today. He later argues that "Congregational church government is often threatened by the passivity of the priesthood itself, but it is also endangered by the activity of authoritarians" (p.71).
He furthermore warns that "there is no reason to expect that they (Baptist Churches) are exempt from the erosion process (p. 130)" - eroding of the priesthood principle, and then asks, "What can be done to stop the erosion?" He might as well have asked, "What can be done to stop the conservative resurgence?"
One of his answers needs to be challenged. His third response was "the erosion can be halted by clarifying the role of the clergy. They are equippers, enablers, facilitators, multipliers, and playing coaches (p.113)." What he says is true, but it is not sufficient.. In fact, it is inadequate. Scripture teaches clearly there is an authority that God gives pastors to lead the local church and that he is accountable to God for his charge. This was included in the San Antonio resolution.
I fear that Shurden created and then proceeded to tear down his own straw man when he wrote, "The doctrine of the priesthood of believers becomes anticlerical only if the clergy are transformed into monopolistic managers of the church, authoritative interpreters of Scripture, and sole mediators between God and human souls (p.134)." I know of no place where that is happening. I do know plenty of churches with strong, godly pastors who are leading their churches to fulfill the Great Commission. No one argues that each member should not have a ministry. That is the plan of God for each believer. But that does not negate the leadership role of the Pastor. The Scriptures cited in the Resolution are in the Bible for a reason.
A second issue addressed in San Antonio addressed the issue of one's right to a personal interpretation of Scripture. When many concerns were raised over aberrant teachings in some of the seminaries, often the response would be, "he (or she) has a right to interpret the Bible for himself (or herself)."
In the time frame of the controversy, Glenn Hinson, professor of Church History at Southern Seminary, wrote a treatise, The Evangelization of the Roman Empire. He concluded that "the covenant and thus the mission of the church could be defined with a greater measure of tolerance (p.287)." He went on to say, "It might necessitate, however, the acknowledgment that the one God has disclosed himself in particular ways through other cultures and religions besides these (Israel, Christ and the Church)." He concluded that "This redefined mission might or might not imply conversion and incorporation into the church." Anyone who reads this volume clearly sees an agenda undoubtedly outside the boundaries of normative SBC theology. This redefinition of revelation, the condition of man, and the mission of the church could not and cannot with integrity be glossed over or ignored. Our doctrinal integrity cannot permit a tolerance of what to Southern Baptists is clearly heresy. Did Dr. Hinson have a right to say and write these things? Sure. Were Southern Baptists obligated to retain him as a professor in our Seminary? Certainly not. This understanding was the intent of the resolution on priesthood of the believer.
Conclusion
San Antonio offered two theological safeguards, parameters if you please, to the doctrine of the Priesthood of all Believers: (1) doctrinal integrity, and (2) biblical leadership. Neither should be sacrificed at the alter of the priesthood doctrine.
At the same time we affirm (1) that all people have the privilege of direct access to God through Jesus Christ, (2) that each believer has a right to interpret Scripture for himself within the doctrinal norms and relational accountability of the "priesthood", and (3) that each Christian is called to minister in any number of ways. This is both a privilege and a responsibility.
[Dr. Jerry Sutton is pastor of Two Rivers Baptist Church in Nashville, Tennessee.]