T. F. Torrance explains the relationship between the royal priesthood (the congregation) and the servant priesthood (the Ministry):

In the Old Testament Church there was a twofold priesthood, the priesthood of the whole body through initiation by circumcision into the royal priesthood, although that priesthood actually functioned through the first-born. Within that royal priesthood there was given to Israel an institutional priesthood in the tribe of Levi, and within that tribe, the house of Aaron. The purpose of the institutional priesthood was to serve the royal priesthood, and the purpose of the royal priesthood, that is of Israel as a kingdom of priests, was to serve God’s saving purpose for all nations. So with the Christian Church. The real priesthood is that of the whole Body, but within that Body there takes place a membering of the corporate priesthood, for the edification of the whole Body, to serve the whole Body, in order that the whole Body as Christ’s own Body may fulfill His ministry of reconciliation by proclaiming the Gospel among the nations. Within the corporate priesthood of the whole Body, then, there is a particular priesthood set apart to minister to the edification of the Body until the Body reaches the fullness of Christ (Eph. 4.13). Thus in the time of the ascension, in the eschatological reserve between the beginning of the Christian Church at Pentecost and what the Apocalypse calls ‘the Marriage-Supper of the Lamb’ (Rev. 19.9; cf. 20. 1f; 22.17) the Church is served by a ministry in Word and Sacrament. This Ministry is as essential to the Church as Bible and sacramental ordinances, but like them, this order of the Ministry will pass away at the parousia, when the real priesthood of the one Body, as distinct from the institutional priesthood, will be fully revealed (T. F. Torrance, Royal Priesthood: A Theology of Ordained Ministry [Scottish Journal of Theology; Edinburgh: Oliver & Boyd, 1955], 81).

I don’t have any problem at all with the fact that all the people of God perform a general “ministry” or “service” to each other and to the world. I simply go back to Paul’s statement in 1 Cor. 11:1, “Follow my example, as I follow the example of Christ.” You can find the same kinds of exhortations all through the NT (see the last half of Phil. 2, for example). The ministers may be the chief public servants of the flock, but they are there to model the way that all believers should act. All the members of the church don’t preach, read the Scriptures publicly, lead the people in worship, preside at the Table, etc., but they all do have some priestly ministry to each other and the world to perform. Jesus is the Minister and Pastor. Jesus appoints pastors in his Church to minister under him and in his Name. Moreover, all the people learning from Christ through their ministers also serve each other and the world. That's what priesthood entails - helping and serving others. Being a priest is not about our individual right to do things alone. Nor is it about our not needing others to help us worship and serve Christ.

There was a controversy among Lutherans in the nineteenth century that relates to this. Wilhelm Löhe taught that only the minister could declare forgiveness effectually. In the mouth of a laymen any absolving words he/she may speak to another “have only the force of consolation,” not forgiveness itself. What the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod said was, no, God may and does mediate his forgiveness through the words of any of his saints. We cannot restrict the comfort of absolution to the minister. The minister’s words on Sunday morning declaring the forgiveness of sins are not of an entirely different order, even if they do come with more authority and power than from a layman. Some people’s faith can be restored by the words of a faithful layman, while others need more assurance, and so they rightly approach their minister for comforting words. After all, the minister has been ordained, set apart to speak for Christ to the people. So what we have is not an either/or, but a both/and answer to questions about who does ministry/service in the church, specifically the question: through whom does God communicate the forgiveness of sins? I do, however, oppose those who would argue that the minister does not have a distinct “ministry” among God’s people. The fact that Jesus has called men to a special ministry does not negate the priesthood of all believers; rather, it enables and strengths it.

I'm still thinking about this objection to a liturgically ordered service where the pastor presides as somehow violating the reality of the priesthood of all believers in the new covenant.

Perhaps someone might object to the fact that the pastor leads the service and does most of the speaking and reading as well as presiding at the Lord's Table. But if that is the real issue, then it's not my book that's causing the problem but rather the Reformation tradition as a whole, indeed, the historic practice of the Church throughout her history.

The practice of including a variety of non-ordained men and women in the leadership of corporate worship on Sunday morning is a very recent, mostly American phenomenon. But the novel practice arose in the 1960's with the introduction of "informal" worship services, even "folk Masses" in the Catholic church. Now, of course, it has spread to other parts of the world. Nevertheless, it took decades to drive the pastor away from his ordained place as liturgical leader (not just preacher) for the congregation. In many 21st-century Evangelical congregations the pastor may welcome everyone to the church at the start of the service, but doesn't do much else but preach. Lay people pray, read, and often lead the congregation with informal, chatty directions and comments.

Now, I don't think this kind of thing is evil or wicked. What I do think is that the Bible says more about pastoral leadership in these areas than is commonly conceded. And the reason for this is that Christ's people are better served by a well-ordered and pastor-led worship service. I've argued this in my book (chapters 14-15). But again, I wonder how many people who jumped to the conclusion that I was violating the priesthood of all believers principle actually read that far in the book.

I suspect someone might argue that removing the pastor from everything but the sermon was overdue and nothing but an application of the doctrine of the priesthood of believers. Something like this: Protestant pastors were effectively acting like Roman Catholic priests until we started to behave in a manner consistent with our commitment to the priesthood of all believers. There are a couple of problems with this.

First, the priesthood of all believers principle does not mean that everybody ought to get a chance to be a liturgical leader on Sunday morning. It never has. Nobody ever dreamed that it might imply such a thing until very recently. The Reformers certainly did not think that this is what the doctrine meant. This observation, of course, is not a slam-dunk because it is always possible that the Church had been wrong about this in the past. We have to grant that possibility. I do not believe in the infallibility of Reformation tradition. The Bible is our ultimate authority.

Where in the Bible do we read that leadership in the community has been democratized in the new covenant? We don't. Rather, in the NT we read about pastors, elders, and deacons. I don't need to cite references. But one example is instructive. Paul writes to Pastor Timothy that he "not neglect the public reading of Scripture." It seems to have been part of Timothy's vocation to read the Scriptures to his congregation.

Every member of the Body of Christ has full sanctuary access in the new covenant. In Christ the barriers of the OT have been removed. When God draws us into his presence we are taken up into heavenly places in union with Christ. That happens to the entire congregation. No one believer is closer to God than any other. There are no degrees of nearness or holiness. That goes for the pastor as well. The pastor is not nearer to God because of his office. Rather, he is called to serve the congregation so that they will experience and receive all the gifts offered through the Word and Sacrament.

But this is standard Reformation stuff. There's nothing Romish in the notion that the Pastor serves the congregation in this way. To ask the pastor to speak as the Lord's representative in the Sunday assembly is not to ask him to violate the doctrine of the priesthood of all believers, rather it is to ask him to fulfill the vocation to which he was called.

I don't believe I've deviated from what I've learned about the ministry from Reformation sources. What I have written is pretty standard teaching on the meaning and function of the Ministry. For example, in the Westminster Assembly's "The Form of Presbyterial Church-Government" (1648) the minister's function in the church is lined out. Eight duties are listed.

"The pastor is an ordinary and perpetual officer in the church, prophesying of the time of the gospel. First, it belongs to his office,

[1] To pray for and with his flock, as the mouth of the people unto God, Acts vi. 2, 3, 4, and xx. 36, where preaching and prayer are joined as several parts of the same office. The office of the elder (that is, the pastor) is to pray for the sick, even in private, to which a blessing is especially promised; much more therefore ought he to perform this in the public execution of his office, as a part thereof.

If you didn't know that this document was produced by the Westminster Assembly, would you think that saying that the Pastor prays as "the mouth of the people unto God" was priestcraft?