We managed to find a church in North Brisbane yesterday, but it was difficult. I ended up driving randomly around praying under my breath (which probably breaks some law about being distracted when driving) and found the North Beaches Baptists who had just moved into a high school hall.

Great sermon about the main reason for church is to make disciples, and how moving to this place (and not building a building) was the correct thing. Great bunch of people there.

But back to church governance and a little bit of praise.

Psalm 145:17-20

¹⁷  The Lord is just in all his ways,
and kind in all his doings.
¹⁸  The Lord is near to all who call on him,
to all who call on him in truth.
¹⁹  He fulfills the desire of all who fear him;
he also hears their cry, and saves them.
²⁰  The Lord watches over all who love him,
but all the wicked he will destroy.

Hebrews 4:14-16

¹⁴Since, then, we have a great high priest who has passed through the heavens, Jesus, the Son of God, let us hold fast to our confession. ¹⁵or we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who in every respect has been tested as we are, yet without sin. ¹⁶Let us therefore approach the throne of grace with boldness, so that we may receive mercy and find grace to help in time of need.

This reflects on one of the core doctrines of the Reformation: the priesthood of all believers. This doctrine was seen as dangerous, as Rushdooney points out.

To understand Puritanism, it is important to recognize the role of a key doctrine in shaping the Puritan mentality. It should be noted that Puritan doctrines agreed in the essentials of soteriology (salvation) and theology with Calvin and Luther. It was a difference of emphasis which produced differing results in the Christian life. Thus, Luther wrote, of the priesthood of all believers, in The Babylonian Captivity of the Church:

As many of us as have been baptized are all priests without distinction. . . . For thus it is written in I Peter ii, “Ye are a chosen genera­tion, a royal priesthood, and a priestly kingdom.” Therefore we are all priests, as many of us as are Christians. But the priests, as we call them, are ministers chosen from among us, who do all that they do in our name. And the priesthood is nothing but a ministry, as we learn from I Corinthians iv, “Let a man so account of us as the ministers of Christ, and the dispensers of the mysteries of God.”[2]

Luther indeed has a central role in the formulation of this doctrine, but, in the practical realm, Lutherans are about as docile in relation to their clergy as Catholics are. Calvin also set forth this same doctrine clearly and strongly, but with about the same results. Some Reformed churches are almost as “priest-ridden” as their Catholic neighbors. Clearly, we have a problem here: a great Biblical doctrine is revived, but its practical consequences are none too great. Great differences mark Rome from Geneva and Wittenberg, but the priestly role of the laity is not one of them. This does not mean that the doctrine was without consequence. The priestly role of the believer as head of his household gained strong emphasis in both Lutheran and Calvinist circles, but not within the church as an institution. The reason appears in Calvin’s reference to the doctrine in the Institutes;

For we, who are polluted in ourselves, being “made priests” (Rev. i. 6) in him, offer ourselves and all our services to God, and enter boldly into the heavenly sanctuary, so that the sacrifices of prayers and praise, which proceed from us, are “acceptable,” and “a sweet-smelling savour” (Eph. v. 2) in the Divine presence. This is included in the declaration of Christ, “For their sakes I sanctify myself”; (John xvii. 19) for being arrayed in his holiness, he having dedicated us, together with himself, to the Father, we, who are otherwise offensive in his sight, become acceptable to him, as pure, unpolluted, and holy. This is the meaning of the “anointing of the Most Holy,” (Dan. ix. 24) which is mentioned in Daniel. For we must observe the contrast between this unction and that shadowy unction which was then in use; as though the angel had said that the shadows would be dissipated, and that there would be a real priesthood in the person of Christ. So much the more detestable is the invention of those, who, not content with the priesthood of Christ, have presumed to take upon themselves the office of sacrificing him; which is daily attempted among the Papists, where the mass is considered as an immolation of Christ.[3]

The doctrine of the priesthood of all believers was of central importance to the Reformers in attacking the validity of Rome ’s doctrine of the priest­hood. The only earthly priesthood after Christ’s death, resurrection, and ascension is the priesthood of all believers; the church is led by a ministry, but it is a congregation of royal priests. The practical import for the institutional church or Christian synagogue of that congregational priesthood was not explored. Furthermore, the relationship of that priesthood to the soteriology of the Reformation was not explored. This link Puritanism has made. If grace is sovereign and free, then what happens to the church, its authority, and its traditions? If grace is sovereign, how then can priest, prelate, or king lord it over man? We should not forget the connections, in 1381, of the Peasants Revolt with Lollardy. Then or later the slogan was born,

When Adam delved and Eve span
Who was then the gentleman?

The Lollards had stressed strong personal devotions, the study of and meditation on the Bible, and a high standard of sexual morality. They refused to leave such things as doctrine to a priestly class. Thomas Hoccleve wrote against this Lollard perspective thus:

Hit is unkyndly for a knight
That shuld a kynges castel kepe
To babble the Bibel day and night
In restyng time when he shuld slepe.[4]

Lollardy threatened society with a break-up of the old order. If knights and commoners became Bible readers and babblers, then what would happen to authority? Lollardy was seen as a disruptive force, and, later, Puritanism was viewed similarly. True, many Puritans feared their own doctrine. New England ’s Puritan hierarchy wanted the people to be a silent democracy within church and state alike, but, in spite of their inconsistency at this point, they did see the saints, in civil and ecclesiastical governmeivers. Now, this doctrine was seen during the time of the reformation as dangerous, and some argue that this led to reformed churches again forming the clerg ndnt, as a royal priesthood and democracy.

I think Rushdooney is too American here. He is conflating the urge for democracy and a certain anti authoritarian streak among those rebels ot 1776  with the justification they made for this.

And he is missing part of the British culture, the honour of the working man, and the respect of the chapel. This did not come easily, it was a long fight to let dissenters and Catholics be citizens and not recusant subjects of the crown.

So let this be simple. Christ is our high priest. The rest of us just minister. And some of us are called to lead, some to administrate, and some to care. Together, we are the body of Christ, and there is order in that body.

And our duty as the lay? to support and pray for the paid. For there should be not lords of the church, nor priests carrying symbolic blood, nor ritual, but a brotherhood.