The scriptural evidence is clear. The Doctrine & Covenants talks about a higher and a lesser priesthood. We have priests and we have high priests and even someone outside of the church can easily guess which one of the offices is above the other on the priesthood totem pole.
I know, I know: the first shall be last and the last shall be first. Those that are called to lead are to be servants and all of that. I think the hope that the priesthood system is not hierarchical is a lovely desire, yet it is far removed from reality.
The tradition in the church was that our priesthood system was a restoration of the model from the New Testament church. That traditional notion is not taught by the church and has been largely discredited. (For instance, the first century church had no high priests and generally only had deacons, elders and bishops that carried out functions very different from those of deacons, elders and bishops in the Community of Christ).
Perhaps another point could be made about priesthood offices. If you are an Aaronic minister, you most certainly will never be hired as a professional minister in the Community of Christ, until a call, at least to Elder comes along. If you have the priesthood office of Apostle, you almost certainly will not lose your job when the church has staff cutbacks (at least that has been pattern during the last two rounds of lay-offs).
President Steve Veasey's efforts on Priesthood Faithfulness are welcome. But perhaps examining the structures of priesthood itself should be a part of our faithful reflection. It seems that being honest about realities of our priesthood system is an important step in that process.
3 comments:
I am particularly amused (?) in this regard by the recent priesthood guidance which distinguishes High Priests as World Church officers from "mere" Melchesidec Elders, who are now, like the Arronic Priesthoods, to be treated separately as local ministers.
Where did THAT come from?
Todd, I appreciate your thoughts on this. I agree with you that there seems to be some very creative use of redactive thought going on with reference to our priesthood development. As long as we have one priesthood office that oversees the ministry of another, we have a hierarchy.
I will go further than the comment of 'thefirestillburning' about the nature of the High Priest. Is defining the HP as a "World Church" office furthering the concept of hierarchy or not? In my own congregation I have been told that I have too many HPs. So no matter whether or not those HPs are functioning there will be no other HP calls. The trend is already set in the central mission center. In the last few conferences there have only been Evangelist calls and ordinations at that level. So much for the whole revelatory process.
Another thought - If we are not hierarchical in our priesthood then why don't I, as an elder and as a pastor, have the ability to call High priests? Why don't pastors who are priests have the authority to call elders? Why don't teachers have the authority to ordain other teachers and deacons?
One question that should be asked in all this: Is there anything inherently wrong with having a priesthood that is hierarchical? which would them lead us to another question: What would be the benefits/problems to the church if its priesthood was not hierarchical? As you suggest, further discussion, discernment, etc., would be beneficial.
We have to acknowledge that power plays a major role in the priesthood system. Until we come to grips with that it is just empty rhetoric.
I will try to do a longer post here sometime to imagine some new ways for priesthood.
Post a Comment