The Clergy/Laity Dichotomy Revisited
Posted on : 10-11-2009 | By : Dan | In : Emerging Church, Theology
Tags: clergy, dichotomy, distinction, false, laity
17
I’ve promised to post more of my questions causing me cognitive dissonance here for you to answer. Here goes. In the past I’ve written about what I believe to be the false dichotomy of clergy vs. laity. I feel that the clergy/laity dichotomy perpetuates an awful falsehood-namely, that some Christians are more privileged than others to serve the Lord. The contemporary practice of ordination creates a special caste of Christian. Whether it be the priest in Catholicism or the pastor in Protestantism, the result is the same: the most important ministry is restricted to a few “special” believers. When we make the pastor a professional clergyman who is distinct from laity we begin to view ministry as something that is only his responsibility. One person is not meant to sport all of these hats. Only an every-member functioning Body can accomplish the ministry that is required to be done. It shouldn’t be “lonely at the top,” because we aren’t meant to live in a separate caste from one another. The teacher is just as vital to the Body as the cashier and the pastor. How does Protestantism reject the Catholic priesthood while maintaining its own pastoral office, all the while affirming the priesthood of all believers (1 Pet. 2:9, Rev. 1:6, 5:10)?
Related posts:
Interesting your quote on the teacher being as vital as the pastor. Luther said the lowly milkmaids vocation was as holy as the pastor. We as Lutherans hate Sacerdotalism but it often appears because of the non pastors ingnorance and sometimes -in my opinioon- because som pastors like power and control. In Biblical reality- it is only a distinctio of vocation- of Service in which God has called us. I remember sitting in Dr Ted Janzow’s living room when I was involved in fighting the Sacerdotalism in the LCMS. It is still here. We have even had a few ministerial misifits reject any ministry by the “laity”. Ted said the words and actions- the ministry- of every Christian should be- are to be- very much the same as the Pastor. The basic difference is that the Pastor speaks for the Congregation and the individual speaks as an individual. God’s Word is always God’s Word.
Interesting walther notes that if a man finds himself where there is no pastor he is to become one and start a church.
Did you know that in the old days of Lutheranism we used to also have Deacons do Word and Sacrament? Walther ripped Grabau a new rear end for wrongly removing one.
http://reclaimingwalther.org/articles/cfw00003.htm
All of us are not called to be Pastors- all of us by our Baptism are Ordained to be Ministering Servants of His Word and to be His Hands of Love in Action. -DR
Unfortunately what was originally meant to simply be a distinction in vocation has become far more sacerdotalist than we can imagine.
we’ll I don’t have to imagine much. I have seen and heard more than a little. It was true sacerdotalism. In 1995 at the synodical convention Ft Wayne was clearly named as having problems. It is Public record. We had one congregation here in Ne in which sunday school was closed “because only the pastor may teach.”
That man was finally removed.
There is also the CEO that is unhealthy also.
My opinion- its easier to lead and the folks in the pew have fewer responsibilites. It really isn’t that hard to maintain the distinction and balance.
I may write something on the Keys. Joel Baseley is working on some now as time permits on the Keys.
While the Pastor may have the highest personal responsibility- the Congregation has the highest most accountability to God for what happens- or does not happen. Matt 18. Just because congregants may not know or understand this- doesn’t change it.
So- my young friend- if a congregation refuse to be obediant to God at what point do you Rms 16.17? If a Synod refuses to deal with the overwhelming impenitence- at what point Rms 16.17?
another question- at what point does teaching Truth in whats taught but refusing to teach the Whole Counsel of Gods Word become reason for Rms 16.17?
“The basic difference is that the Pastor speaks for the Congregation and the individual speaks as an individual.”
I do not find such a idea anywhere in scripture… do you? If so, where?
We’ve all heard the arguments about how the “laity” are supposed to have just as vital of a role as the “pastor”… But if that were truly believed, then a thing like “ordination” wouldn’t be tolerated for a minute…
5 The reason I left you in Crete was that you might straighten out what was left unfinished and appoint/ordain elders in every town, as I directed you.
The Holy Bible : New International Version. 1996, c1984 (electronic ed.) (Tit 1:5). Grand Rapids: Zondervan.
Why does scripture distinguish between Deacons and Elders/bishops/Pastors/overseer’s?
Lutherans have always said- always- ordination is simply a church custom- not an abosolute necessity. To speak for the congregation- it kind of comes down to this- has a group of people- where two or three are gathered- asked someone to preach or teach or oversee the teaching within the church? If I have not been asked to teach or preach do I have the right to force myself on others? Where you owrship- would I be in the right to tell the preacher- get out of my way- I want the pulpit today?
This post was quite thought-provoking for me and it took me some time to respond because of it! I ran it by a friend of mine in seminary and he gave me some extra insight.
I’m curious then about John 20:20-21, which Luther used to defend as the installation of the ministry. Also, 1 Timothy 3 does set standard for those who are overseers, deacons, etc. suggesting that it is something special. Titus 1 states even elders should be “blameless.” The rest of the passage outlines further requirements for those who wish to hold this office.
Note further that protestantism rejects the catholic priesthood in the sense of their belief that they perform the “sacrifice” of Christ, not because we reject the priesthood itself. The catholic church did not oppose the Augsburg Confession’s part on the ministry.
These are all things he brought up in response. I would say sometimes I too get confused about this issue, but again it’s one that I guess I don’t dwell on much. I guess it’s because of God’s using me more as an apologist on a philosophical rather than doctrinal level (though the two obviously do tie together).
Dick… It was interesting to me how much of your last comment really revealed just how much we have co-mingled the ideas of “teaching” with “authority”… It’s amazing, isn’t it, that we have such a hard time even imagining a kind of teaching that doesn’t require someone to say “the pulpit is mine today”…? The reality is, there was no pulpit, or ancient equivelant thereof, in the days of the early church…
When we take even a cursory glance at what the NT has to say about teaching, it is clear that everyone who was mature in the faith was expected to be able to teach others. It was not some special privelage, resigned to only a select few. It was something basic, (and so not surprising that we find it listed as a requirement for elders…) Certainly the scripture speaks of those of us we seek to be teachers, and how those who teach will be judged more severely, but we must not let our modern day conceptions misguide our understanding of what the scriptures really teach. Just because some receive a special spiritual gift of teaching, that doesn’t mean that they are the only ones who are ever allowed to teach! Also, just because some aregiven the gift of teaching, that doesn’t mean that whatever they say/teach must be received by everyone else as “authoritative”… It simply means they have been given a special heart and supernatural empowering to do it more than the average member of the Body. Similarly, never in the days of when the NT was written, did anyone have the concept of needing to be “invited” to teach. It was not some super exceptional privelage which needed some kind of official invitation, but instead the scriptures teach that if anyone in the meeting receives a word of prophecy, then as long as things are being done in an orderly way, everyone gets a turn to speak, and what is spoken was also weighed by the group as a whole.
There were no “scheduled messages”, or sermons as we think of them today. Teaching was something that came through ordinary men and women as they were prompted by the voice of the Holy Spirit. Essentially, it was something that is almost altogether inconceivable to the contempary American church-goer…
I would actually disagree with the statement that “never in the days of when the NT was written, did anyone have the concept of needing to be ‘invited’ to teach.” What of Paul’s constant defenses of his authority as an Apostle? What of 1 Timothy 3:1ff, 5:17, Heb 13:7, Eph 4:11-12, and throughout Acts, the appointment of Elders (for which Bishop is used interchangeably–see Titus 1:5, Acts 20:28). As far as being called by the church: 2 cor 8:19, Acts 13:2-3, 14:23.
And then we have the Augsburg Confession, Article XIV, “Concerning church order they teach that no one should teach publicly in the church or administer the sacraments unless properly called.” Also, Article XXVIII outlines the power of bishops and the Church, and it is asserted that such powers (of the keys of or bishops) “depend… on one’s calling” (8).
Further, Luther says in the Book of Concord in “Treatise on the Power and the Primacy” [of the Pope], 70, “The most common practice of the church also testifies to this, for in times past the people chose pastors and bishops. Then the bishop of either that church or a neighboring one came and confirmed the candidate by the laying on of hands.” And moreso, in the Apology of the Augsburg confession, Article XIII, 12 “For the church has the mandate to appoint ministers, which ought to please us greatly because we know that God approves this ministry and is present in it. Indeed, it is worthwhile to extol the ministry of the Word with every possible kind of praise against fanatics who imagine that the Holy Spirit is not given through the Word but is given on account of certain preparations of their own…”
I don’t think without an understanding of the Munzerites and other issues of the day- the Treaty make make much sense as to the “why?”.
Per Teaching- I would encourage a thinking about the both/and and not either or.
there were also fulltime pastors as well as worker priests.
1 Cor 9 14 In the same way, the Lord has commanded that those who preach the gospel should receive their living from the gospel.
15 But I have not used any of these rights.
No one may ever go beyond the Word’s authority.
The Sheep are to Judge the Shepherds.
more later….
one more- per the Keys- they are given to all. Both. The Binding Key and Loosing/Forgiving Key- Law- Gospel- are for everyone. For the final Step it is to be taken to the Congregation.
Hmm… there are a lot of arguments being made from many sources. Few of them being Scripture….
I believe I used many Scripture passages, in fact, far more than the original post.
I believe Scripture sets a standard for a called priesthood.
per the pulpit- that was figuritve.
5 To the elders among you, I appeal as a fellow elder, a witness of Christ’s sufferings and one who also will share in the glory to be revealed: 2 Be shepherds of God’s flock that is under your care, serving as overseers—not because you must, but because you are willing, as God wants you to be; not greedy for money, but eager to serve; 3 not lording it over those entrusted to you, but being examples to the flock. 4 And when the Chief Shepherd appears, you will receive the crown of glory that will never fade away.
(1 Pe 5:1).
Heb 13 17 Obey your leaders and submit to their authority. They keep watch over you as men who must give an account. Obey them so that their work will be a joy, not a burden, for that would be of no advantage to you.
(Heb 13:17). DR- This authority goes no further than the Word of God- per the Brief Statement- if the pastor in his injunctions were to go beyond the Word of God we must disobey him.
As you noted per Hebrews the whole congregation is being chastised- rebuked for not maturing to be teachers of the Word to others.
Elder- Overseer- Bishop- Pastor- Shepherd are all the same- they are asked by the “2 or 3″ to serve. Like Zecariah- John the Baptizer’s father- it is for the time of service- not for life.
Just because there is abuse and neglect by those in the Office and those out of the Office- which there is- of how this is to be done- doesn’t mean God hasn’t given us a balanced standard.
What was the primary difference between Deacons and Elders in Acts? Why?
Who chose/called/ordained (set apart)?
What did the Deacons also do while doing what they were Called to do?
Acts 6 In those days when the number of disciples was increasing, the Grecian Jews among them complained against the Hebraic Jews because their widows were being overlooked in the daily distribution of food. 2 So the Twelve gathered all the disciples together and said, “It would not be right for us to neglect the ministry of the word of God in order to wait on tables. 3 Brothers, choose seven men from among you who are known to be full of the Spirit and wisdom. We will turn this responsibility over to them 4 and will give our attention to prayer and the ministry of the word.”
5 This proposal pleased the whole group. They chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Spirit; also Philip, Procorus, Nicanor, Timon, Parmenas, and Nicolas from Antioch, a convert to Judaism. 6 They presented these men to the apostles, who prayed and laid their hands on them.
7 So the word of God spread. The number of disciples in Jerusalem increased rapidly, and a large number of priests became obedient to the faith.
Who were the 8.4 and What did the 8.4 do? 4 Those who had been scattered preached the word wherever they went.
what resulted from the preaching and teaching of the people? Acts19 Now those who had been scattered by the persecution in connection with Stephen traveled as far as Phoenicia, Cyprus and Antioch, telling the message only to Jews. 20 Some of them, however, men from Cyprus and Cyrene, went to Antioch and began to speak to Greeks also, telling them the good news about the Lord Jesus.
21 The Lord’s hand was with them, and a great number of people believed and turned to the Lord.
You did use Scripture J.W., but I disagree with your conclusion about a called priesthood. I think Hebrews makes it clear that the priesthood was abolished and the only priest we need is Christ. 1 Peter 2:9 declares: “But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people belonging to God, that you may declare the praises of him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light.” So under the new covenant we are ALL priests before God because the only mediator between God and men is Jesus Christ, and we can go directly to him (1 Tim. 2:5, Heb. 4:15-16).
First of all, I don’t believe the Augsburg confession, or any of Luther’s writings, qualify as “scripture”… (in regards to J.W.’s comment)
But you did list a bunch of scriptures, and make a quick reference to the “appointment” of elders, which is what usually happens in these kinds of conversations…
I’ve found that whenever engaging in the conversations with those who have accepted this modern concept of “church leadership”, (and I was in that position for most of my life…) that this is what we do. We simply point to quick proof-texts that say something about the “appointment of elders”, or, “those who preach the gospel should receive their living from the gospel”, and then that settles it, right?
But do we ever stop to consider what those texts are really saying, or how much we may be reading into them?
What does it mean when it says “appoint” an elder anyway? Was it really a title, with a list of expectations and powers?
What does the scripture mean by “receive their living from the gospel”? Does it really mean that people should be paid a salary, or one-time fee, for preaching the gospel? Or is maybe it describing the reality that those who were traveling around, planting and building up churches, could simply expect to get room and board (the basic definition of “living”) from the churches they were visiting?
Do we honestly believe that any of the apostles, or deacons, or elders, in the early Church, made contractual agreements to receive money from the people they were serving??? (as is the accepted practice today…)
Dick, in that verse in Hebrews you quoted it says: “not greedy for money, but eager to serve”… But if we allow ourselves to take money from the people we are “serving”, and then turn around and say, “well, I’m not being greedy for money, just taking what I need”, then that whole warning becomes useless and meaningless. Where is the line for “greediness” drawn? How much is an “acceptable” amount of cash to take from God’s people?
Also, in those verses you quoted, it really opens up the fuller picture…
We must keep in mind what it says in 1 Peter, when we read a verse like Hebrews 13:17! Particularly, where it says, “not lording it over those entrusted to you, but being examples to the flock”
“Lording” one’s authority over someone else, that is the essence of a hierarchical leadership approach. Living as an example, is a completely different thing altogether. You said yourself Dick that: “This authority goes no further than the Word of God… if the pastor in his injunctions were to go beyond the Word of God we must disobey him
But right there, the whole appeal to an office-oriented approach to leadership falls apart! That is not some small caveat to be thrown in at the end, just to deal with a few “extreme” situations, but it actually affects everything!
It’s like saying, “submit to their authority, and obey whatever they say, but only when they are right”… Huh? How is that supposed to work? Well…. it doesn’t, and history has proven this over and over again…
What happens within a hierarchical leadership structure (like, say, the Catholic Church…) when that institution teaches false doctrines, and someone (like say Luther) stands up and says, “This is not what the bible teaches!”? Usually, they try and squash the “insurrection”, right? So that voice of protest leaves the hierarchy, and then goes out and starts a new one, with new leaders in new offices of authority… But what happens when they themselves teach something contrary to scripture? The same thing, over and over and over again… Every new denomination that has formed was an attempt at created a “solid” bullwark to protect the truth, by putting it in the hands of some “ordained”, select few who had the scholarship or wisdom to “protect” it from being ruined by the common folk. The Holy Spirit of Christ has been considered untrustworthy in protecting His own Gospel, His own church, and we incessantly defer His role to our devices…
Most of the time, when new false teachings or heresies have arisen, it was introduced to the church through someone in an official “leadership position”. This is because that all too common idea of “obey your church leaders, unless they teach something contrary to scripture”, is a completely schizophrenic way of thinking! Why do people look to an official “clergy” in the first place, huh? Why do they think there is a need for a special class of “ordained” Christians at all? Because they are pointed to as the ones who “have the answers”. They are the ones who have the “specialized” training and abilities beyond the average believer. If there was no existence of this belief in the minds of the “laity”, then these men would simply not have jobs.
You pay an electrician to come out an fix your wiring, because it is something that is beyond the understanding or ability of the average person. But the kind of “leader” that is described in the NT, is much more like a neighbor, who comes over when he hears your electricity is out, and takes a look. He invites you to come and watch, while he inspects your electrical system. He shows you what to look for. He shares whatever he knows. He helps you fix it, and makes sure you understand enough so that the next time it happens, you won’t need him to be around. He doesn’t accept any offers of money, but happily enjoys the lunch you made for him while he was there. He leaves, and the impression you are left with afterwards is, “I want to be someone like that”…
I hope to be up around 4ish in the morning and take some to for thoughtful responese and questions.
While there have been a few times I have felt the need to defend the Public Ministry- I have way way more often been on the defense trying to defend the Ministry of All believers. I have seen the abuse first hand- “You know if you reject me as your pastor your rejecting the Christ don’t you- you do know that don’t you?”
“Will you submit and obey me?” Three times repeated with table pounding mouth frothing and spit flying. “Only if what you ask me is in accordance with the Word of God” was the answer three times.
There was a move to Excommunicate me also.
There is more but thats enough.
If you will- it somewhat offends me for you to say I blindly swallow the LCMS.
I don’t.