Skip to content Skip to sidebar Skip to footer
Home / Are the laity and the clergy fundamentally different from one another?

Are the laity and the clergy fundamentally different from one another?

Post a Comment

There has been much talk in contempo months, for a whole host of reasons, of eliminating the 'culture of deference' inside the Church of England. This has been highlighted over the weekend in the comment by Stephen Cottrell, on the day of his 'enthronement' equally Archbishop of York, noting that his predecessor has not been elevated to the House of Lords.

This has prompted me to re-post this short essay, which I wrote 5 years ago equally part of the work of one grouping in the Renewal and Reform process, who were looking at the status of the laity within the Church building.

When the C of Due east Comms department posted a comment on the importance of 'vocations', a well-known lay leader in the Church gave it none besides warm a response:

As someone not a vicar, this article makes me experience I have no right to a vocation to not-vicar work. And actually, I have got one, as exercise many thousands of not-clergy Christians. Come on C of Eastward, nosotros need the whole people of God. Not just vicars. Lay people are worth far more than a passing parenthetical phrase.

A further communication about the importance of 'vocation' within the Renewal and Reform plan elicited a similar response.

'New ministry statistics released'. Ii columns about ordained ministry. Lay people get one mention in the final paragraph, and that's the rather dismissive 'whether ordained or not' rather than a more positive 'whether called to ordained or lay ministry.'

Office of the problem arises from the unqualified employ of the word 'vocation' to refer to 'vocation to ordained ministry', since information technology suggests that lay ministry is something that y'all are called to when God doesn't call y'all to anything more important. Some other issue is the proffer that ordained ministry is the esse of the Church, rather than its bene esse—that, without clergy, the Church does not exist, so that a decline in the number of clergy threatens the Church's very existence, rather than just its health. This idea reaches its most farthermost form in the proposal that, even if the Church had no congregations, 'it would go on to do most of its essential work.' But even without that reductum ad absurdum, the language here conveys the notion that lay members of congregations make fiddling significant contribution to the mission and ministry of the Church building.

Underlying this is a more deep-seated idea, but one that is very rarely identified or articulated explicitly. This is the notion that humanity is fundamentally stratified rather than unified—that is to say, that at that place are some fundamentally dissimilar categories of humanity that we need to consider when thinking most either ecclesiology or ministry. This stratification is defined by two phenomena:

  1. Clearly differentiated categories of human, with meaning rites and processes mark the transition from one category to some other.
  2. A sense of permanence nigh such transitions—that it, when someone has made the transition from i category to another, the alter is permanent and is commonly irreversible.

Within the Church building of England, the nearly basic stratification is between laity and clergy; when I take been counselling those involved in ordination training, who are following a slightly irregular path, my counsel has been 'Whatever you practice, brand sure you get ordained as presently every bit you can'. This advice springs from my observation that, in many applied ways, until you are ordained you are invisible to the Church, precisely as was interpreted by the person commenting on the reports above. It as well springs from the normal irreversibility of the change of category; whatsoever else irregular happens in the training path of the person concerned, they normally comport the fact of their ordination with them.

This bones categorisation has a finer structure than the simple binary, since the Church has inherited the historic 'iii-fold order of ministry' of bishops, priests and deacons, and for the terminal 150 years or so has added lay readers, now known only as readers. In addition, many dioceses take a category of licensed lay government minister distinct from readers, creating a half dozen-fold stratification: 'ordinary' laity; licensed lay ministers; readers; deacons; priests (or presbyters); bishops. The three ordained orders all exhibit the characteristic of permanence; once you enter this order you do non usually get out it, in dissimilarity to other denominations' understanding of orders of ministry which chronicle to one's current role. The 2 distinct stratifications of lay ministry have less formal permanence, though in practice they have a strong sense of permanent identity.

Debates about these stratifications have tended to focus on 2 primary issues:

  1. In what sense is ordination a 'functional' or an 'ontological' modify? Does it mark a modify in role for an individual within the Church, or something more fundamental virtually the nature of their human being?
  2. How does this stratification within the Church, the torso of Christ, relate to the more key marker of baptism? Is it possible to exist a baptised member of the laos, the people of God, and in any meaningful sense not be deputed for ministry building?

These ii issues are connected by the question: does ordination involve an ontological change comparable with the ontological change that occurs at the moment of baptism? Those (reformed) churches which believe in the two sacraments of baptism and Holy Communion would normally answer 'no'. Churches which believe in seven sacraments, including ordination alongside baptism and Holy Communion as sacramental ordinances, usually reply 'yep.'

Backside these problems lies a bigger question about theological anthropology. Does Scripture and Christian theology primarily picture humanity as unified, with shared identity, characteristics and status, or primarily every bit stratified, with some common identity only with a differentiation which gives the different categories of humanity distinct statuses and roles? The biblical narrative overall moves between these ii ideas, and offers a mixed moving picture, parts of which are in tension with other parts.

The creation narratives differentiate humanity into male and female from the very beginning, but this is done in a way which powerfully unifies the ii sexes, both at the level of the shape of the narrative and in comparison with other ANE creation stories. In the offset creation account, the unity and differentiation are held together tightly by means of poetic parallelism, with a 3-fold repetition of bara (Heb 'created') running through:

Then God created human beings in his own image,
in the paradigm of God he created them;
male and female he created them.

In the second creation account in Gen 2, at that place is a similar dynamic expressed in narrative course. The adam needs a helper kenegdo, both equal to and differentiated from him. It is clear that the animals will not do, since though differentiated from him they are not sufficiently like to him. It is just 'mankind of my flesh, and os of my bones' which elicits the existential recognition of such a 'suitable helper'. And information technology is then only in the 'fall' in Gen 3 that a differentiation of power is introduced, as the woman will now 'desire your husband, and he volition rule over you lot.'

It is this entry of sin and rebellion into God'southward perfect creation which introduces another kind of differentiation into humanity, in the form of those who stand apart by dint of their virtue and obedience to God. Noah is introduced in this style in Gen 6, and he and his family unit get the archetype of the 'faithful remnant' which reappears later in the biblical narrative in unlike forms. Abraham and so fulfils this part from Gen 12 onwards, and his dynasty eventually becomes the nation of Israel, a community which expresses the most deep-seated stratification that runs through correct to its cease: the difference betwixt the 'elect' and the residual of humanity, between those within and without the people of God, and ultimately between the saved and the lost.

In Exodus, nosotros meet the effigy of Moses, who looms large over the Pentateuch and all of Jewish self-understanding. Moses introduces a stratification within the people of God (and not just between them and the rest of humanity) both in his person and in the teaching that he receives from God and passes on to the people. First, he functions equally ane uniquely positioned to hear what God is saying who is and then commissioned to laissez passer these words on, and and so functions as The Prophet for the people. Secondly, he is the intermediary between God and the people who pleads the people's case in God'southward presence in a priestly fashion. Thirdly, because of his wisdom acquired from his time in the presence of God, he is able to rule over the people as a king. Information technology is hit that the language of 'judging' is used of him (Ex 18) which is then used of the sequences of 'judges' of Israel, who are themselves cultural progenitors of the kings of State of israel later in the Deuteronomistic history.

These three ministries of prophet, priest and king continue as distinct categories within the stratification of the people of God through the major part of the story of God's people, with the features mentioned above of ritual transition and permanence in different forms. Different parts of the narrative focus on the importance of each of these three, for example Levicitus (as its name suggests) highlighting the centrality of the priestly ministry building, and the histories (in the Hebrew Bible the 'sometime prophets') often focussing on the interplay between the king and the prophet in the nation's life.

From the despair of the failure of this three-fold stratified ministry to keep the people of God faithful emerges a new prophetic voice of promise in God's restoration. This vision often re-introduces the distinct category of the 'faithful remnant'; see, for example, Ezekiel ix and the promise of Is 10.21, whose hope 'a remnant shall return' provides not simply the name of his ain son (Is 7.3) but also the name for a modern kibbutz settlement in northern Galilee, 'Shear Yashuv'. But it is striking that these visions also, for the about part, offer a vision of a unified, restored humanity, either implicitly or explicitly eliminating the demand for stratification and then rendering the categories involved as of penultimate rather than ultimate importance. In Jeremiah, this is integral to the promise of hope itself; the presence of God with his people does away with any need for intermediaries:

"No longer will they teach their neighbor, or say to one some other, 'Know the Lord,' because they will all know me, from the least of them to the greatest," declares the Lord. "For I will forgive their wickedness and will remember their sins no more than." (Jer 31.24)

Even Ezekiel's priestly vision, culminating in a new temple, has a unified vision of the people of God who have a 'new undivided heart, a heart of flesh and not of stone' (Ez eleven.19, 36.26). This is now accompanied past the presence of the Spirit of God, who previously had come up on prophets, priests and kings for occasional moments, merely is now poured out on all, either marginalising or eliminating differences. This reaches its clearest expression in the later (likely post-exilic) text of Joel:

And afterward,
I will pour out my Spirit on all people.
Your sons and daughters will prophesy,
your old men volition dream dreams,
your immature men will see visions.
Even on my servants, both men and women,
I will pour out my Spirit in those days. (Joel ii.28–29)

The ultimate vision of the prophets is that, in the restoration of God'due south people, the unified vision of humanity in cosmos will be recovered and restored, as a sign to all of humanity of the faithfulness and power of God.

These movements significantly shape our understanding of the New Testament. The theology in John's gospel of Jesus as the tabernacle and temple of God implies that the OT priesthood is of penultimate importance equally a distinctive category inside the people of God. In fulfilment of the role of Moses, Jesus becomes prophet, priest and king, and Paul's theology of the people of God every bit those incorporated into Christ (the 'body' of Christ) confers an undifferentiated condition on each member. Paul's theology of the Spirit, as the unifying, proleptic and eschatological gift of God'south presence to his people continues Peter's cribbing of Joel 2 in his Pentecost spoken communication. The gifts and piece of work of the Spirit are distributed on all people, regardless of sex, indigenous identity or social status. Thus it is that Robert Banks sums up Paul's agreement equally the emptying of all stratification amongst the people of God:

Paul's dissolution of traditional distinctions: between priest and laity

Within the church building, distinctions between priest and layman, mediatorial and mutual service, cultic ritual and secular activity, do not and cannot exist…

Between officials and ordinary members

Paul rejects the thought of sure members of the customs possessing formal rights and powers…

Betwixt holy men and common people

Paul has no place in his view of community for the traditional distinctions betwixt its members along cultic, official or religious lines… (Paul'due south Idea of Customs chapter 13)

Paul does withal come across some differentiation in the gifts given by the Spirit and the ministries that people are called to (most notably in the souvenir lists in Rom 12 and one Cor 12, and the identification of the four- or 5-fold ministries in Eph four) but these fall within the unifying piece of work of the Spirit. Unity does non mean uniformity. The most significant differentiation that Paul introduces (assuming that the pastoral epistles are Pauline) comes in his instructions for the appointment of elders (presbyteroi from which the English language word 'priest' is derived). The qualified importance of elders is shown in the fact that only in his letter to the Philippians does he make mention of them (with deacons) in the opening epistolary address. A key debate for later ministry is whether the introduction of elders represents a trajectory of stratification from the unified vision earlier in Paul, which is then expressed in the historic three-fold order of ministry in the Church, or whether information technology should be read as a practical and pragmatic measure which must sit within the more decision-making unified vision.

The last vision of the people of God in Revelation 21 draws on a wide range of OT themes, and sits within this NT theological vision. The maths delivers the theology: the size of the city as 144,000 stadia both identifies information technology with the people of God (the 144,000 in Rev 7 and Rev 14) just as its shape (a cube) shows that it is not merely the temple but the Holy of Holies at the centre of the temple. The place of the very presence of God, previously attainable just by the most stratified in the stratification, the High Priest, and that only in one case a year, is at present the domicile place of all God's people (Rev 21.3, in fulfilment of Ezek 11.20); the elimination of the differentiation of concrete infinite is used to express the elimination of stratification amid the people of God.

How practice we make sense of this variegated vision, particularly in the New Attestation? The about important theological central is the partially realised eschatology of the NT documents, which we find expressed in a broad variety of contexts. The ultimate, eschatological vision of God'south people is the unified 1 we find both in Gen 1 and two and Rev 21—though in Rev 21 the basic division betwixt the faithful and the sinful remains (even if in a qualified class) since we are seeing here fallen-and-redeemed humanity, non pristine pre-lapsarian humanity. Yet, the people of God must live out that eschatological vision in the pressing realities of this age, which has non yet passed abroad. Stratification and categorisation might, then, exist a practical and businesslike necessity, only it tin can never be accorded ultimate significance or importance. Inside the story of God'due south people, stratification appears to exist necessary at key moments, simply they are ofttimes moments of disobedience, crisis or judgement. They part as staging posts, necessary as steps towards a unified goal, merely not expressive of information technology.

This suggests that in that location is a potent instance for seeing what stratification does exist (both in the NT and in the contemporary church) in something other than ontological terms. At that place might well be a practical and pragmatic necessity—fifty-fifty a pressing necessity—for unlike formal categories of ministry, just these should non be considered to be of the essence of the people of God. This provisional recognition of their importance allows (for instance) the possibility of total ecumenical relations with not-episcopally led churches.

Simply this also has important implications for our language of 'vocation' and the style we deploy it. The term tin only exist applied to certain groups with the whole church building in the context of applying it to all. It might well exist the case (demonstrated from research on church building growth) that having sufficient ordained leaders is vital to the wellness of the Church. Only this emphasis on vocation of one stratified layer of ministry is not unique, in the sense that it takes its identify aslope the vocation of all the baptised that arises from the ultimate, unified vision of the people of God. The call of God to ordination cannot be separated from the phone call of God to his whole people—as Higton and Alexander eloquently limited in their triangular agreement of the role of leadership in the Church. It likewise means that the reply to the questions about lay ministry building and lay leadership should not be sought in additional stratification of the laos of God. Indeed, this should be entirely unnecessary.

If you enjoyed this, do share information technology on social media (Facebook or Twitter) using the buttons on the left. Follow me on Twitter @psephizo. Similar my page on Facebook.

Much of my work is done on a freelance basis. If you have valued this postal service, you can make a single or repeat donation through PayPal:

Comments policy: Adept comments that engage with the content of the post, and share in respectful debate, can add existent value. Seek first to understand, so to exist understood. Make the most charitable construal of the views of others and seek to acquire from their perspectives. Don't view debate every bit a conflict to win; accost the argument rather than tackling the person.

myrickbrociall.blogspot.com

Source: https://www.psephizo.com/biblical-studies/are-the-laity-and-the-clergy-fundamentally-different-from-one-another/

Post a Comment for "Are the laity and the clergy fundamentally different from one another?"