|
|
HELP OR HINDERANCE?
|
|
While the clergy/laity distinction is embedded and assumed in religious circles, it cannot be found in the New Testament. It reared up its ugly head in the third century, long after Christ's apostles died. We should be pointedly reminded of the utter deceitfulness of sin when we realize how deeply such an unscriptural and damaging concept has taken root in visible Christianity. The New Testament teaches leadership among the people of God, but not in a way that leads to the "clergy/laity" conclusion. The root words from which we derive the English words "clergy" and "laity" are found in the N.T., but our usage of "clergy/laity" is far removed from the N.T. concepts.
Clergy . . .
The English word "clergy" is related to the Greek word "cleros." It means "a lot or inheritance." For example, in 1 Pet.5:3 the elders are exhorted not to lord it over "the lots" (Greek: ton cleron), which refers to the entire flock of God's people. Nowhere in the New Testament is any form of "cleros" used to designate a separate class of "ordained" leaders. Instead, it refers to the "inheritance" (Greek: clerou) laid up for all the saints (Col.l:12; Acts 2~:18). The saints as a collective whole are conceived of in the N. T. as God's "inheritance." We have utterly perverted and turned upside-down the N.T. teaching by using the term "clergy" to refer to a special elite group of church leaders.
Laity...
This English word is related to the Greek word "laos," which means "people." The Greek word "laikos," which means "laity," is not found in the New Testament. All in the body of Christ, whether "saints, bishops, or deacons" (Phil.l:l), are the "people" ("laos") of God. "People of God" is a title of honor bestowed upon all who believe in the Lord Jesus Christ (2 Cor.~:16; Titus 2:14; 1 Pet. 2:9-10).
It was not until the third century that "clergy" was employed to designate a limited number of persons who functioned in the Christian assemblies. One of the worst outcomes of the "clergy" doctrine was that it communicated the notion that without the "clergy" present there simply was no church. Baptism, the Lord's Supper, and many other church practices, could not happen unless a "clergyman" was present.
Because the New Testament knows nothing of "clergy" the fact that a separate caste of the "ordained" permeates our vocabulary and practice illustrates rather forcefully that we do not yet take the N.T. very seriously. The "clergy" practice is a heresy that must be renounced. It strikes at the heart of the priesthood of all believers that Jesus purchased on the cross. It contradicts the shape Jesus' kingdom was to take when He said, "You are all brethren." Since it is a tradition of men, it nullifies the Word of God (Mark 7:13).
Every Christian tradition has its insights and blind spots. But the "clergy" system is practiced across the board and is thus a universal blind spot. Seminaries and Bible Schools have multiplied to produce people for the "clergy" profession; ministerial conferences abound to supply support and encouragement that the "laity" cannot give; magazines are published to provide ministerial tips; pastoral search committees must be formed everytime a minister moves on; clergy counseling must be provided for those who burn-out and have nervous breakdowns; etc., etc. A whole intricate system is in place to perpetuate and preserve a role which the New Testament knows nothing about.
Like it or not, this "clergy" role ends up requiring a virtual omni-competence from those behind the pulpit. "Clergy" are paid to perform whatever is necessary to keep the religious machinery going, and the expectations are very high for those who wear the many hats this profession demands.
The deadly problem with this unscriptural system is that it eats up those within its pale. Burn-out, moral lapse, divorce, and suicide are very high among the "clergy." Is it any wonder such repeated tragedies occur in light of what is expected of one person? Christ never intended anyone to fill such an ecclesiastical role. In light of Paul's remark in 1 Cor. 12:14 that "the body is not one part but many," we should be able to discern that the "clergy" position is neither healthy for those in it, nor is it beneficial for the body of Christ.
Scholars have debated the propriety of ordaining women as "clergy." However, a larger, more fundamental question has been passed over in the process: should anyone, male or female, be ordained as "clergy," since the Bible does not know of such an office?
The terms "Reformation" and "Renewal" are buzz-words in religious publications. Sadly, most periodicals of this sort approach the "clergy" system as sacrosanct, thereby reinforcing its stronghold in contemporary churches. I submit that to seek the renewal of the "laity" while perpetuating the "clergy" system is like mixing oil and water. Deep renewal (a healthy body) will come only as every member contributes his/her gifts and graces, which includes a leadership that practices the servant model revealed by Jesus in Mark 10:42-45. The "clergy" system stands as a monumental obstacle to genuine reformation and renewal. The church must jettison this system in order for the Word of God to have free course.
