In the proposed paper, I argue that ecclesial testimony—the church’s proclamation and embodiment of the gospel message—is a function of both its priestly and prophetic nature. My constructive account adds “priestly” to the predominantly prophetic understanding of ecclesial testimony, exemplified in the writing of Karl Barth. In service of this, I offer a Protestant appropriation of the Eastern Orthodox “Priest of Creation” motif, drawing on the resources of Thomas Torrance, Jeremy Begbie, Colin Gunton, and Norman Wirzba, each of whom has adopted similar language for various ends. My account differs from theirs in its testimonial focus, as well as its attempt to construct a self-consciously Protestant construal of the motif itself.
In my view, the dual designation of testimony as priestly-prophetic has a threefold benefit. First, the priestly element, seen supremely in the church’s liturgical service, uniquely authenticates the prophetic dimension, tying gospel witness to the catholic institution of word and sacrament.
Second, the addition of the priestly dimension links ecclesial testimony to the creation itself. In this linkage, the church can more clearly be seen as a servant of the wider world, rather than its master. On this point, the priestly motif is preferable to a more traditional kingly motif for just this reason: it is less susceptible to an overemphasis on “dominion” language and the negative political and environmental consequences that are prone to follow. Yet, I argue, the priestly-prophetic nature of the church’s witness is part of a single, threefold office, as can be inferred from the “royal” priesthood language of 1 Peter 2:9.
Third, my Protestant appropriation of the “Priest of Creation” motif opens up the possibility for ecumenical dialogue. This motif has much to commend it from an evangelical perspective, even while rejecting a thoroughgoing sacramental view of creation, common to writers such as Kallistos Ware and Alexander Schmemann.
Ultimately, then, my construal can accommodate a traditional view of Christ’s threefold office, but need not, in order to appropriate the Protestant-friendly elements of the Priest of Creation motif. In this way, I hope, it offers a useful—and timely—take on ecclesial testimony from a broadly evangelical perspective.