Theology and Economics: The Clergy and Laity Dualism

I have been writing about the influence of external factors in creating the Gnostic dualism that prevails in the American Church. Yet the problem is not purely a result of outside influences. An internal dualism has plagued the Church since not long after the New Testament era. It is the dualism of clergy and laity.

I can’t count the times I have heard pastors and theologians say that “laity” means “the people” and is the English word for the Greek laos. However, the term “laity” is not a direct translation from the noun laos (“people”). It came indirectly from laos through the Greek 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 CE. In urging 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 used as 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 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 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? Do you prefer ministry by a lay Christian any more than 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 do “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 the 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 are the clergy!

The primary locus for ministry is the congregation in dispersion throughout the community during the week. (More on this in following posts.) 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 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.

I have written about this topic enough to know that the minds of many reading this post are reading things into it I have not said. I want to say point blank that nowhere in this post have I said there is no role called pastor. I have not said that there should be no authority structures. I have not said that the Church needs to be radical democracy. If you have interpreted what I have read to say this, then I invite you to go back and read what I have written again. It isn’t there. I have said that there is not a super-spiritual caste of people who are “God’s inheritance” or “the clergy.” The whole people of God are “God’s inheritance” and, therefore, the clergy. Pastor and leader are roles occupied by some of the clergy in service to the rest of the clergy.

There is yet another persistent misunderstanding about my writing on this topic. Many, especially those from the Reformed tradition, read this and affirm the importance of the role of the elder versus the role of the minister of word and sacrament. Again, if this is your interpretation, then you have entirely missed my point. I am saying that baptism is ordination into ministry. The fact that so many define “ministry” as what goes on under the auspices of an ecclesiastical authority, usually within the four walls of an ecclesiastical facility, is proof positive of the dualistic split we have made between the material and spiritual aspects of life.

My point here isn’t necessarily about the words “clergy” and “laity” themselves. I am using them here to illustrate a duality. Our friends in traditions like the Roman Catholic, Orthodox, and Anglican traditions have a different take on the role of Church tradition and therefore retain the lingo that came after the New Testament era. My aim here is not to bash anyone who uses the lingo. In fact, I sincerely believe that since Vatican II, the Roman Catholic Church has done more to fulfill the work of the “laity” than have all the Protestant traditions who preach “the Priesthood of all believers.”

However, as a child of the Reformation, I find it troubling how pervasive the language of clergy and laity is in a tradition that has championed sola scriptura. I like Karl Barth’s observation on this topic:

“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)

Above I said that “laity” is defined in the negative. Is there a mission for those not ordained to ecclesiastical office?

(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, The Other Six Days: Vocation, Work, and Ministry in Biblical Perspective (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans, 1999), 24-25.

(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,

(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.

[Previous] [Next] [Index]

Comments

[Dave Moody]

Michael,
Great post. And I mean that. Even, or perhaps especially, as a guy who wears a collar (metaphorically speaking...).

My observation- four years as an ordained minister of word and sacrament, and 30 something as an 'idiot'- is that this is a two way/co-dependent mutually enabling dynamic- the clergy/laity thing. I *think* I would dearly love for God's people here to adopt the moniker 'minister member' for real. I've even told them- the only thing I can do better than any of you, is parse greek verbs! - but many are afraid to do it. They've been trained to be consumers by the culture, and some (some) get down right resentful when reminded that this ain't the case!

Sometimes I hear, and perhaps not acurately, that the clergy keep God's people from doing ministry by continually reinforcing the professional nature of it. I've not seen that, in my experience. I have experienced though- people being very angry and calling me- when I sent an elder to pray for someone, instead of me going, because I was otherwise occupied at the time. "It means so much more, pastor" And I could name off several other instances where, "I don't know why he makes us do this, thats the pastor's job" is bandied about, supposedly out of ear shot.

My thinking in this is that there's a need for repentence on both sides of our current divide-- and the laos tou theou need to recapture the apostolic understanding of church as body with a purpose/mission. We need a paradigm shift culturally. And I don't know how to do that gracefully.

I would happlily give up the title Rev. and be plain ol' Dave the guy who teaches, studies and preaches. Of course I'd have to figure out how to make money parsing greek verbs...

Thanks again for such thought provoking posts.
grace & peace,
dm

[Michael Kruse]

A wonderful testimony Dave. Thanks!

At the end of one of Woody Allen's movies (I think Annie Hall) he tells of a visit to his psychiatrist. It goes something like this:

“I went to my psychiatrist the other day. I told him I have a friend who thinks he is a chicken. My psychiatrist asked me if I had told my friend that he is not a chicken. I told him hadn’t. My psychiatrist asked me why I hadn’t. I told him it was because I need the eggs.”

The “laity” think they “need the eggs” the chickens (clergy) are laying. Stop producing eggs and you will one day have your neck wrung, and you will be fried and served for a church dinner. You are absolutely right.

The problem won’t be solved without EVERYONE coming to clarity. Too often, “priesthood of believers” talk is subterfuge for ecclesiastical power struggles. The congregants have no intention of engaging the world in ministry. I hope the coming posts will make this point.

Thanks again. Your predicament is one I hear over and over from pastors.

[David]

Preach it, Michael! This is a great post: well considered and thoughtful.

I actually think there are two obstacles to a world in which all of the saints are involved in doing ministry: The first obstacle is well described by Dave: laity that wants the hired help (aka pastors) to do the heavy lifting in ministry.

The second obstacle is put up by pastors who don't want to give up control / authority / privilege. This reluctance can be for good reasons (There are a lot of "idiots" out there who will commit abuse in the name of ministry) or bad reasons (I make a LOT of money because I'm "special" and can perform weddings and baptisms).

It seems to me that making the transition out of duality will require the laity to give up the narcotic of consumerism and the clergy to give up the narcotic of power. History suggests neither addiction will be easy to break.

However, the opportunities for ministry, once we eliminate the sacred cow of ordination, would seem to compel us forward, letting go of our addictions.

Thanks for pointing the way.