Priesthood of the Believer

After discussions with Matt on posting I have been informed that no topic is too controversial, and since the most controversial topic we’ve had thus far has been about race, I figure, its about time to get deep on in it!

I’m talking about Priesthood of the Believer.

For those who are unfamiliar, “Priesthood of the Believer” is a historically Baptist/Protestant doctrine that states that every individual is their own “priest”. This principle was a driving force in the Protestant Reformation.

The doctrine comes with the following pieces:

1.) Each believer has equal standing before God. While the scripture clearly calls us to respect the authority of our leaders, ultimately, there is no distinctive between clergy and laity as far as their ability to receive instruction from God or to understand and apply Scripture.

2.) Each believer must stand before God for themselves at judgment. This is self-explanatory, but no one else other than Jesus will stand with us in Judgment. It doesn’t matter how much my momma prays for me, it ain’t helping me once I’m dead.

3.) Each believer has direct access. A fundamental tenet of Protestantism is the ability to pray directly to God and Jesus and not through any other person or object, living or dead.

4.) Each believer has the right to interpret the Scripture for themselves. Being a priest with equal standing as others under God, having direct access to God through prayer and the work of the Holy Spirit, and our own ultimate responsibility to God for our life’s work brings the logical conclusion that we each have the freedom to interpret Scripture as the Holy Spirit moves in our lives.


In my opinion, it doesn’t get controversial till piece 4. The right for believers to interpret Scriptures for themselves cast a lot of gray areas and perhaps even more shadows on the topic of the “Priesthood of the Believer”.

I agree with this theory in part. The biggest reason I give, is the topic of alcohol. The Bible does not condemn the intake of alcohol, only the abuse of it (i.e. “too much wine”). In fact, in order to settle his stomach, Paul recommends Timothy partake of a little wine. Yet, many theologians make it a point to absolutely condemn getting near it. Southeastern Seminary mandates that none of its students even look at it. I recognize that some people may be more tempted to become alcoholics than others, and I believe that with prayer and guidance from the Holy Spirit, God may say to some “don’t do this at all, you don’t want to open that door” and to others, it may simply be the Biblical directive of “not too much”. At this point, I agree that the priesthood of the believer allows for individuals to determine what God’s will is in their life on their own.

However, there is a slippery slope here that I fear, and it’s a quick trip into moderate theology. It becomes easy for a congregation member to say “I’m reading Scripture and to me it says that taking care of my family is of top priority, but I really can’t afford kids right now, so getting an abortion is okay because I wouldn’t be able to take care of it as the Scripture’s request”. Or “Jesus is certainly one answer for salvation, but I know that God is love, so He wouldn’t be so exclusive, it must mean that all religions lead to God”.

Without having a firm set of doctrine that gives you a standard of historically understood Biblical truth, the “Priesthood of the Believer” becomes almost a hall-pass to believe whatever you want since each believer is just as “correct” as the next.

For a Pastor in a church whose congregation believes the extreme of “Priesthood of the Believer” your sermons must devolve into touchy-feely speeches on being a better person and how to promote friendship. Knowing that everyone will interpret Scripture differently means that it can hardly be used to preach authoritatively from, in which case you can only barely mention it in passing as you move on to discuss why God wants you to recycle, or not recycle if you don’t feel like it. Ugh, who would want to sit through that garbage?

On the flip side, there are pastor’s who become so dictatorially authoritative that they try and govern their congregations choice of vehicle and tell them what to believe or not believe.

So how should the doctrine of the “Priesthood of the Believer” be rewritten, or "re-understood", to address the concern of individuals reaching up to God in a one-on-one relationship while respecting the volume of church history and understanding of what certain passages mean?