The biblical notion of laity and clergy

HEADER FOR Expressions

(Click picture to go back to Table of Contents)

Welcome

Enjoy... But remember
"Don't give in to winning the argument
and losing one of your eternal crowns..."

God bless you...

The biblical notion of laity and clergy

Forum: Theological Expressions
Re:

The clergy/laity distinction: a help or a hindrance to the body of Christ? (RTC)
Re:

Elders and Deacons (K)
Date: 2001, Jul 30
From: RTC

A basis for the offices of Elder and Deacon in the church may be found in the New Testament, primarily in Paul's first epistle to Timothy. ++Biblically speaking there's no such idea of "office" in ministry. Elders are simply older people. It is not an office. The elders, being older, experienced, brokened, and tested people, have a function called sherpherding, which include teaching and overseeing the church Deacons simply means servants. It again denotes that this person is a servant, with no hint of it being used in a titular or official manner. This is as far as the NT allows. It is to sinful man's credit and ingenuity that we have made such terms into lofty titles to satisfy our craving for organisational-hierarchical order and control. I believe that in most Protestant traditions, what is called the "clergy" is simply a reference to these two special offices ordained by God in Scripture, while the "laity" is, well, just a term for "non-clergy"... ++It's not as simple as you think it is! However, this should not in any way negate the clear doctrine of the priesthood of all believers; ++The POB is very clear, no doubt about that. Sad to say, it is only clear when verbalised, the reality is all too different. the "clergy" is not an intermediary between God and the "laity" at all, but merely a group of individuals who have answered the call to give of themselves full time in serving the Church through administration, teaching and pastoral care -- and it is perhaps only just that other members of the Church recognise the tremendous sacrifices made by these brothers and sisters through the respectful term "clergy"; moreover, the apostles did not shy away from being called "apostles" either. ++That sounds again very nice on words. But let reality speaks. Isn't it common knowledge that people want to hear from the pastor what God is saying to the church? And that people look to the pastor for vision and direction? In any case, apostles are not clergymen in the NT. I believe most members of the clergy in Protestant traditions fully understand that their calling is one of servanthood and not rulership. ++Maybe so. But it is inevitable that with a hierarchy in place, servanthood oftentimes becomes rulership. Even more fantastic is that such rulership can be justified based on the verse "elders who rule well". But the word "rule" is a wrong translation of "prostemi" which means to stand before. I myself attend a Methodist church here in Singapore, and just recently one of our pastors took time to re-iterate clearly during his sermon that pastors were but fellow believers in the body of Christ, and that while being given the responsibility of leading the Church is a privilege, it is certainly not a "position of power". On the contrary, it can be one of the most demanding, painful and unappreciated professions one can take up! ++I know! But can't you see that the problem with the clergy is the clergy itself? Because the unbiblical clergy system takes away the functions of the believers (relegating them to a paying and passive laity) it is no wonder that many pastors are reeling under the burden of a ministry that is not theirs to bear. As such, I believe much of the misunderstanding about this clergy/laity "distinction" actually originates from those of us in the majority group designated as the "laity", as we unfortunately all too often succumb to the temptation to pass on all the work of the Church to the clergy instead of realising that we too have an equal duty to use our spiritual gifts for the good of the Church -- and thus we cultivate the popular perception of the clergy as a "mystical", "ultra-spiritual" elite that can do things far better than any lay member, when in fact they are our own brothers and sisters in Christ who are silently suffering under the many heavy burdens placed on them. ++It goes with the territory. It's human nature that if you are paying someone to do the job, you let the person do the job! It's an inevitable outcome! The only way to get the laity to function is to abolish the laity, and it's not by the clergy trying all sorts of ingenious ways to get more participation from the laity. It is to do away with the entire system and renew the thinking of church. Just this morning, one of my pastors pointed out in his sermon that actually there are many ministry tasks where a "lay member" is in fact likely to be more effective than a "clergyman", eg. in personal evangelism, as people in society at large are far more likely to give more credibility to the testimony of an "average" person rather than a "paid professional religious minister"! ++Isn't it a sad admission that the pastor can no longer effectively do what he is traditionally paid to do? So why are people still keeping him in his post? I'm not asking you to therefore sack the pastor. But it should be matter for serious consideration. This is not saying, of course, that all churches today maintain this proper, Biblical perspective of the clergy... like all other doctrines and truths, this has been corrupted by man throughout the history of the Church. Yet this is no reason to abandon a system that is intended for good. ++The word clergy derives from kleros meaning God's inheritance. Laity is laos for people. All God's laos are His kleros! There is no artificial setting apart of one group apart and above the rest. This is the biblical perspective. And because the current notion of the separation between clergy and laity is unbiblical, that is GOOD enough reason to abandon the system that does more harm than good! On a closing note, I am not surprised that some will try to defend the clergy-laity distinction. Sad to say, they do not use the Bible to support what they say, rather they appeal to the Christian character of the clergymen to back their case, which is really not an appeal to God's word at all.