Klaos - The "Clergy People of God" and the Myth of Laity

Where did we get the clergy/laity dichotomy? The word "clergy" comes from the Greek word kleros, which means "lot" or "inheritance." When used figuratively, as in, "we are God's inheritance" or "we share in the inheritance of Christ," it refers without exception to the whole people of God. It never refers to a specially called elite subgroup of people. "Clergy" and "the people of God" (laos tou theou) are one in the same group!

The term "laity" is not a direct translation from the noun laos ("people") as is often purported. It came indirectly from laos through the adjective laikos, meaning "of the common people." Laikos is not in the New Testament, nor in the ancient Greek version of the Old Testament called the Septuagint.

The first known mentions of laikos come from about 300 BCE. It was an adjective used in papyri to describe the profane things of the rural people in Egypt. The earliest known use of the word in Christian literature is in a letter by Clement of Rome to the Corinthian church, written circa 96 C.E. In exhorting the church to preserve godly order, he alludes to the order of the Old Testament era. He discusses the responsibilities of those who were neither priests nor Levites and calls them laymen (laikos anthropos.) (1 Clement 40:5) (1)

Laikos was used sparingly by Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion in their Greek translations of the Old Testament during the second and third centuries. It was a synonym for bebelos, meaning "profane" or "unholy." Laikos was also a synonym in Greek literature for idiotes which meant "nonprofessional." (It is the word from which we get "idiot.”) Laikos did not enter the common Christian vocabulary until the third and fourth centuries. Over time and across languages, the adjective evolved into the noun "laity" to represent the unprofessional, common, and profane people contrasted with the educated, holy, and sacred people known as "clergy." (2)

The Reformers saw this as a problem but also struggled with church order. Their struggle to reconcile the issues resulted in the retention of the clergy/laity distinction while trying to elevate the laity. (3) Did they succeed? Ask yourself if you prefer ministry by a lay-Christian, any more than you do surgery from a lay-surgeon, or legal advice from a lay-lawyer?

Real ministry is what is done by a caste of Christians called "clergy," those with special training and an extra endowment of spirituality. Laity exists to assist clergy in real ministry. We say we believe in the priesthood of believers but look at our language and structures. Clergy does "full-time" Christian ministry. We send people to seminaries to prepare for the ministry. We install them in our congregations as the minister. Prayer is deferred to the clergy because they have special status with God. The sick have not been cared for until visited by clergy.

Ask anyone for a definition of laity, and it nearly always is given in terms of the negative:

• Function – they do not administer the sacraments.
• Status – they don't have reverend in front of their name.
• Location – they don't serve primarily in the church.
• Education – they don't have a degree from seminary.
• Remuneration – they are not paid for church work.
• Lifestyle – they are occupied with the "secular" instead of the "sacred." (4)

When "laypeople" are referred to positively, they are said to be "the people of God" (laos tou theou.) True enough, but the "people of God" in contrast to whom? The clergy? Scripture only uses clergy (kleros) in reference to the whole people of God. Laos tou theou is the clergy!

The primary locus for ministry is the congregation in dispersion throughout the community during the week. We have moved the locus to the gathered congregation. Why? Because non-pastor Christians are "idiots!" (laity = laikos = idiotes = idiots.) They can be helpful assistants to clergy, but they cannot be fully trusted with the things of God. Real ministry can only be done by professional Christians. Since they can't be everywhere, it is the job of the "laity" to bring unbelievers to the professionals for real ministry. Consequently, the saints are thoroughly under-equipped for ministry in dispersion and are demeaned and trivialized for ministry among the gathered. Am I exaggerating? Do people in the pews have any sense of call? Look at the best-selling book list. What continues to be at the top? The Purpose-Driven Life. You may love or hate the book, but it is being read by millions of people who have received no discernment of call and ministry from the Church.

It is time to dispel the myth of laity and embrace the reality that all the baptized are clergy. We are all kleros + laos = klaos; "the clergy people of God."

I quoted Karl Barth recently, and what he wrote needs to be repeated:

“Theology is not the private reserve of theologians. It is not a private affair for professors…Nor is it a private affair for pastors…Theology is a matter for the church. It does not get on well without professors and pastors. But its problem, the purity of the church’s service, is put to the whole church. The term ‘laity’ is one of the worst in the vocabulary of religion and ought to be banished from Christian conversation.” (5)

1  Weber, Hans-Ruedi. "On Being Christian in the World: Reflections on the ecumenical discussion about the laity." Document at World Council of Churches website: www.wcc-coe.org/wcc/what/education/ weber.html. 1999. Accessed May 1, 2005
2  Ibid.
3  Gillespie, Thomas W. "Ministerial Orders in the Reformed Tradition: A Study in Origins." A paper presented to the delegations to the Consultation on Church Union from the Presbyterian Church in the U.S. and the United Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A. circa 1979?
4  Stevens, R. Paul, The Other Six Days: Vocation, Work, and Ministry in Biblical Perspective (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans, 1999), 24-25.
5  Karl Barth. Theologische Fragen und Antworten, 1957, 183-184, quoted in R. J. Erler and R. Marquard, eds., translator, G. W. Bromiley. A Karl Barth Reader. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1986, 8-9. I found the quote in R. Paul Stevens. The Other Six Days. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999, 24.

(This post is a modified excerpt from an article I wrote in the Presbyterian Outlook called Respiratory Failure in the PC(USA).)

 

[Previous] [Next] [Index]

Comments

[grace]

Excellent article, one of the best I've seen on this topic.

I'd like to see someone tackle how we apply this thought to our current organizations and culture. How do we put it into practice and what do our communities look like if we do?

[will spotts]

Excellent piece. Of course my perspective is probably skewed because I agree with it.

I have always had a distaste for the esoteric and non-egalitarian. I always thought it odd that we pay a class of people to be holy for us. It is not just in minsitry that we make this distinction, but also in behavior and thought life. Clergy are supposed to be "spiritual". This is unfair to them as well -- they are held to a different standard of behavior that is often unrealistic and not particularly Christian.

Earlier you mentioned a differentiation between authority and ministry -- and that is fair enough. But I'd point out that these are also a polarity . . .

[Michael W. Kruse]

Thanks Grace.

"How do we put it into practice and what do our communities look like if we do?"

Precisely! I have some thoughts on that but I hope you and others will chime in over the next few posts.

[Michael W. Kruse]

"Of course my perspective is probably skewed because I agree with it."

I don't look at it as skewed. I look at it as having exceptional insight! **grin**

"Earlier you mentioned a differentiation between authority and ministry -- and that is fair enough. But I'd point out that these are also a polarity . . ."

Hey, watch it. No fair using the author's own posts against him. Actually, I haven't really thought of authority and ministry as polarity. Can you say more about that?

[will spotts]

OK. Serves me right for going for the joke. This will take far too long to explain properly, but here's the brief version.

It is a false dichotomy -- but many of the ones you're talking about are. Authority and ministry are related in that ministry is based in authority -- Jesus begins with "All authority in heaven and on earth is given to me . . ." Paul had authority -- by virtue of ministry; Peter did, James did. Priscilla and Aquilla had authority over Apollos. Timothy had authority over the church at Ephesus. But these authorities were not by virtue of human decisions or the will of people.

The poles would be on the one hand some Quakers or some so-called Anabaptist groups, or some liberation theologies that posit an anti-authoritarianism as ministry. Often these last two have supported things that were not good. (Note: that's not a fair description of Anabaptists as the Reformation era excesses were often labeled Anabaptist actions, but most Anabaptists were in reality quite peaceful.)

The other pole would be something akin to the Teutonic Knights -- who took it upon themselves to militarily Christianize parts of Eastern Europe that were already Christian -- because they had not received their Christianity properly from the Roman Church. Today this pole can be seen in the elitism applied to the clergy or the hoops necessary to be an approved ministry, or the concept of only one type of ministry.

Jesus, on the other hand, gives very clear guidance about the exercise of authority. The example of washing the disciples' feet drove home this point.

[Michael Kruse]

Got ya. I see what you mean now. Very interesting insight.

[Christian Boyd]

Great article!

Although I am a "Rev'd", I have always disliked the way "lay" is used. Elders are called lay leaders, but at the same time they are ordained with the laying on of hands and prayer. Thus they are clergy in the traditional sense.

"Lay Pastor" is a term in our current Book of Order that is profane to the Reformed tradition. They are ordained elders who have been trained and commissioned to serve a congreation as a minister of Word and Sacrament. We really need to look at what ordination is within our communion, and how it is different from the ministry we are called to through the grace of our baptism.

I personally see myself as an elder of the Church catholic, set aside by the community to be a teacher and spiritual director. That is what I am being compensated for, just like a public school teacher or college professor. The authority received comes from the community as they see and hear and grow in Christ. That is my function for which the community has set me aside for, as well as to preside at the sharing and prolamation of the Word and adminster the sacraments of God's grace (however, this last part is not relegated to ministers of Word and Sacrament alone, but also may be administerd by an elder of a congreation with approval of the Presbytery).

Why are there ordained offices within the Church? It is our inheritance from the synagogue and the way of the early Church. It provides order and vouchsafes orthodoxy (in theory).

Traditionally there have been four offices within the Church catholic, through which some of the baptized are set aside to minister within due to their spiritual gifts. According to Calvin, they are pastors or bishops (which was retained in the first PCUSA constiution). They are teaching elders, provide oversight of the whole congregation, and symbolically connect the congregation to the greater Church as its ambassador. Next are elders, or presbyters (shorten in English as "priest"), who are the spiritual leaders of a congregation, and minister to them by providing and organizing for the community's worship, discipline, instruction, care, and mission. With the elders are the deacons, who aid the elders in their ministry, as well as being the compassionate heart and witness of Chirst to the congregation and the world, and are to overseee the benevolences. Lastly are the teachers, who in the early church were called the Catechists. They are trained and are set aside to be the doctors and professors of the Sacred Tradition, training the young, those who are confimrming their faith, and preparing those who have been called to minister as an elder, deacon, or baptized. Normally they have also been elders, although Tradition shows that some, like Origen of Alexandria, was not ordained until later in life.

As Calvin and Luther pointed our, these are offices and functions. Those called to minister through these offices are not raised above the baptized, there is to be no heirarchy, for their is no heirarchy in ministry of the Trinity. Authority of these offices come from the Gospel and the people of God, sealed by the Holy Spirit. Those who have been set aside for these offices therefore are entrusted with the sacred duty to ensure Christ's commission is followed through, and the people of God will be the body of Christ in the World and for the World.

In short, I would be all in favor of removing the "laity" and "clergy" terms from the BoO.

[Michael Kruse]

"As Calvin and Luther pointed our, these are offices and functions. Those called to minister through these offices are not raised above the baptized, there is to be no heirarchy, for their is no heirarchy in ministry of the Trinity. Authority of these offices come from the Gospel and the people of God, sealed by the Holy Spirit."

Thank you for this Christian. I have an unpublished paper on this topic written 25 years ago by Dr. Thomas Gillespie that I hope to put on my blog soon. I got his permission last week at GAC to do so.

Your post anticipates where I am headed with this series of posts. I have just begun discussing Ephesians 4 and there is no question that God gives us the offices and functions you mention. There is authority in the church. There are pastors (which is not synonymous with clergy.) However, all the baprized are ministers but God sets asided a few to minister to the minsters. The inescapable connotation of clergy/laity is professional/amateur, spiritual/secular, giver/receiver. It is DEEPLY destructive to the mission of the church. It focuses all of our attention to what happens inside the four walls of church. Whatever attention does get directed outward is often calculated in terms of what benefit it brings inward. This is hardly pick up your cross daily and follow me.

Personally, my favorite metaphor comes from Elton true-blood who wrote of player-coach and team.

[Stephen Culver]

I understand if the 'clergy/laity' terminology itself is slightly offensive. If it is just an issue of semantics, then how should we properly distinguish the leadership of the church from the common people? The words in question may not be found in the New Testament, but we certainly see a pattern of hierarchy with the body. I don't believe that is disputable. You have elders and deacons and then you have those who are not either an elder or a deacon. Scripturally, you have a division already existing in the church. So now what--would it be better to label everyone either a shepherd or a sheep of the flock? Even the under-shepherd himself is a sheep, for all practical purposes. 1 Peter 5, the author states that the elders are to shepherd the flock and there is a suggested oversight to their role and a subjection on behalf of the flock. Again, there is already a line of division present in the 1st century church. Articles like this attempt to blur that line for no profitable reason.