Living Theology in
the Metropolitan
Volume 9, Number 1
Spring 2004
The Vocation of the Laity
_____________________________________________________________
THE LAITY, VOCATION, AND THE CHURCH:
A VIEW FROM THE PEW
We have been nourished with Word and Sacrament. We have received the benediction. A lone voice cries out, “Go in peace. Serve the Lord.” We respond, “Thanks be to God.”
I always shout this response. Sometimes this shout is an affirmation. Moved by proclamation and fortified by the
Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, I am ready to go into the world in the name of
our risen Lord. At other times this
shout covers confusion. Underneath the
bravado is the unspoken timid response, “OK.
How?” My guess is that I am not
alone in this unuttered question. Those
of us who sit in the pews often have an underdeveloped vocational
self-understanding. We live our
ecclesial lives in a limbo created by a residual category. We are the unordained, the laity.
A
useful summary statement of this problem appeared in a witty message on
“Liturgical Ranks” that made the rounds on the Internet about a decade
ago. I have seen it in various forms on
Lutheran, Anglican, Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox distribution
lists. Whatever the variation, a great
deal of attention is given to precise definitions of the office, function, and
vesture of bishops, deans, presbyters, and deacons. After endless details
(including more than anyone ever wanted to know about dalmatics), the rest of
the Body of Christ is dismissed with an economy of words: “The Laity, the Holy People of God (a.k.a ‘us
common folk’) show up from time to time and we tend to wear whatever we
please.”
At
the end of this brief essay I will pose several propositions for further
discussion as we seek an understanding of the nature and role of the laity, but
first I will present a little etymology, a little history, and (perhaps) a
little theology as an invitation to the reader to think along with me and talk
with others about the laity (or perhaps more correctly, the unordained) as
something more than a residual category—the lumpen masses in the pew to whom
ministry is directed. Basic to all that
follows is my assumption that talk of vocation, clerical or lay, must start
with some discussion of ecclesiology, the doctrine of the church—that doctrine
that Carl Braaten asserts is the most underdeveloped part of our theology.[1] One may find ecclesiology a strange starting
point for discussing the vocation of the laity, but a search for the origins of
the word “laity” leads us to the earliest documents on the doctrine of the
Church. These documents immediately beg
the question whether speaking of the unordained as the laity is correct. The term is derived from various portions of
the New Testament where λάω τοϋ
Θεοϋ[2] (people of God) or λαός
Θεοϋ (God’s people) is used as a collective and corporate
term just as “Church,” “Body of Christ” and “priesthood” are part of the
collective identity of those who have been called, baptized, and sealed.[3] Indeed, both etymologically and
ontologically, the New Testament literature leads us to think of ourselves in
terms of a peoplehood of the redeemed called apart from the world and sent back
to it in order to proclaim redemption.[4] Obviously, we know from Acts and various
epistles that the
Toward
the end of the first century (c. 96 AD) Clement of Rome used the term for the
collective identity of all Christians (laity) as a separate identity for the
unordained.[5] Clement’s writings achieved great popularity
among those Christians who left written material by the end of the second
century AD. His views had obvious impact
on Irenaeus and Eusebius. The division
Clement suggests within the Body of Christ is obviously more than a simple
functional classification. It was perhaps
inevitable that the Church, always tempted to be of the world as well as in it,
would adopt a hierarchical structure with assumed ontological differences
between those in Holy Orders and those who were not. The relocation of the priesthood from the
entire Body of Christ to a specific location within it was perhaps the most dramatic
outcome of this development. When Church
and secular society became increasingly intertwined following the fourth
century, secular hierarchies (consisting of certain ranks of laity) and
ecclesiastical hierarchy often had similar interests, but they could just as
often collide. By the end of the 13th
century, some sources suggest a state of tension between those in Holy Orders
(including members of Religious communities) and the laity. The prime
example is Boniface VIII’s Papal Bull of 1296 entitled Celricos Laicos, which begins: "Antiquity teaches us that
laymen are in a high degree hostile to the clergy, a fact which is also made
clear by the experiences of the present times; in as much as, not content
within their own bounds, they strive after what is forbidden and loose the
reins in pursuit of what is unlawful. Nor have they the prudence to consider
that all jurisdiction is denied to them over the clergy - over both the persons
and goods of ecclesiastics.”[6]
Thus, in this specific context, the abstract terms "sacred” and
“secular" were given concrete form and anthropomorphized into
"clergy" and "laity."
In
the Sixteenth Century the Reformation did a great deal to modify the
tension. Luther’s 1523 treatise Concerning the Ministry effectively reversed
Clement’s conflation of presbyter and priest, particularly in the section
entitled “A Priest is not identical with Presbyter or Minister—for one is born
to be priest, one becomes a minister.”[7] In the Lutheran confessional literature we
find references to reception of the chalice by the laity[8]
and lay absolution[9], but the
division into clerical and lay status was still palpable. The Formula of Concord: Epitome (1576) contains the following:
“Since these matters also concern the laity and the
salvation of their souls, we subscribe Dr. Luther’s Small and Large Catechisms
as both of them are contained in his printed works. They are “the layman’s Bible” and contain
everything which Holy Scripture discusses at greater length and which a
Christian must know for his salvation.”[10]
Certainly this
brings the laity into theological discourse, albeit at an elementary level, but
the distinction between the ordained and the unordained remains and clearly
implies differing levels of sophistication in matters of the faith. The point here is not to suggest that the
distinction between the ordained and unordained was incorrect, but to point out
that the unified Body of Christ implied by the term “People of God” was not
thus recovered.
The laity have occupied a greater role in the Church in recent
centuries. Calvin’s Reformation opened
ordained ministry to a larger number of people and a wider set of functions in
the Church, although ordained deacons and ruling elders in the American
Presbyterian churches are still referred to as “laypersons.” The circumstances of the Church of England in
the colonies of
Oh, there have been important and
significant exceptions to this generalization.
Ironically, during the past four decades the Roman Catholic
Church has often been at the cutting edge in restoring a New Testament
understanding of the laity as partners in the work of the whole People of
God. Three documents from the Second
Vatican Council are relevant here: "Constitution of the Liturgy"
(1963), "Constitution of the Church
" (1964), and the "Decree on the Apostolate of the Laity" (1965)[14]
as is the 1995 Catechism of the Catholic Church.[15]
Like
so much else in Vatican II, this has had a ripple effect throughout the
Christian world. In our own tradition obvious examples are the
introduction of lay Assisting Ministers in the Liturgy and the inclusion of lay
voting members in all aspects and levels of Church governance. The latter example, however, is
problematic. Voting members are not
necessarily informed by deep and continuous theological discourse. This is not to say that lay voting members
could not be informed by deep and continuous theological discourse. We can and should participate in Church
deliberations from that perspective, but those of us who are lay members of the
Church have not developed a clearly articulated vocational
self-understanding. Furthermore we
often perceive ourselves as the objects of ministry rather than a part of the
ministry of the Church. In large part we
have come to this point because we demand greater access to the highest levels
of secular education, but are content with a more limited religious
education. There are exceptions of which
I am aware and of a handful of congregations with well-attended continuing
education programs for adults, but such examples are rare. Even in those rare exceptions, the laity
infrequently perceive themselves as active participants in the ministry of
Christ’s Church. Beyond this, and of
greater importance, our formation is incomplete. It needs to be ongoing.
We need a
reformation to address this situation, but I must make clear at the outset that
such a reformation should not be anticlerical.
I do not for one moment advocate lay presidency at Eucharist or similar
suggestions. There is a legitimate
distinction to be made between the ordained and the unordained, but that
distinction needs to be rooted in an appreciation of a corporate identity that
unites us as the People of God, the Body of Christ, the royal priesthood—in
short, the Church.[16] Perhaps we should cease using the word
“laity” when we mean “unordained.” We
are all People of God. Those of us who
are unordained should not hesitate to place ourselves under the authority of
pastors who themselves are under the authority of the Gospel. That is a shared submission. We need to be fed by those pastors with Word
and Sacrament. We need to be partners
with pastors in the ministry of the Church beyond the confines of the sacred
spaces of our Sunday assemblies. We need
to be dismissed with the instruction to “Serve the Lord” and we need our
“Thanks be to God” to be a countersign to all that was said and done in the
Liturgy and as a commitment to take what we have been given into the world and
to return every Lord’s Day. Most of my
ordained friends are anxiously waiting for such a reformation and the recovery
of a New Testament vision of the People of God.
I
have no idea precisely how this reformation is to be accomplished (although a
close reading of the baptismal rite in the Lutheran Book of Worship
might be a good start). I am certain
that we will need to think theologically.
I am certain that we will need to listen respectfully to one
another. I am certain that we will need
to pray together as often as (perhaps more often than) we talk together. I am certain that our self-awareness as the
Body of Christ and as the People of God is essential before we gain a
self-awareness of our status as the unordained.
The invitation to the reader mentioned earlier in this article consists
of some suggestions to start the conversation.
My regard for Blessed Martin is too high to call these suggestions
“theses.” Perhaps they are talking
points. I will limit myself to ten. Ninety-five would probably be pushing it.[17]
1.
The Gospel and Theology: The
Gospel provides us with a radical vision based on our reconciliation with God
and each other through our Lord Jesus Christ.
The Gospel gives us a perspective that obliterates national, class,
ethnic, tribal, and clan identities.
Theology is the arena of our most serious discussions about the Gospel,
its implications, and how we both respond to it and proclaim it. It is a starting point for Christian action
and for the life of the Church. Doing
theology, both thinking and acting, is living in the tension between history
and eternity. The eternal Logos took on
flesh and entered into finite history in the person of Jesus. Through teaching, precept, and resurrection,
Jesus transcended place, clan, race, nationality, status and gender. In short,
Jesus transcended history. We are called
to live in the necessity of historical reality and in the transcendent new
creation simultaneously. If we opt for
the historical reality only, then we have no source for our ministry. If we opt for the transcendent only, then we
have no object of ministry.
2. The Church: The Church is not simply how we choose to respond to
the Gospel. Jesus Christ instituted the
Church as the continuation of His ministry on earth. The Church is not a democracy. It is a monarchy. Jesus Christ is our King. We are his body, not as a metaphor but as a
living spiritual reality, and he is the head.
3. The Priesthood:
There is only one priest, and
that is our Lord Jesus Christ. The
“priesthood of all believers” does not mean that we are all priests, like
Christ. It means that we have been
enfolded into Christ at the time of our baptism, and participate in the Royal
Priesthood of our Lord. Through that
priesthood we re-enact the story of salvation, break bread, and share the meal
until Christ comes again. We do this in
order to receive the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, the nourishment we need to
proclaim and live the Gospel.
4. The Laity: The laity consists of all of the people of God who
have responded to the Gospel message.
This includes the person baptized just this instant as well as those
whose initiation into the Body of Christ took place several decades ago. What, then, do we make of the clergy? Clergy have a specific vocation for the
maintenance of the Church as an institutional incarnation of the Word and the
nurturing of other laity so that the entire body may more effectively
participate in the ministry of Jesus Christ.
Theirs is the ministry of word and sacrament. They maintain the Church, that institution
which houses our common life together.
This common life is crucial to our identity as Christians. It is neither singular nor solitary. We live a life that is plural and corporate.
5. Our Corporate Nature: In
ordinary conversation there is no problem in talking about a singular layperson. Conceptually, however, it is better for us to
think of ourselves as part of the laity, if indeed we continue to use that
term. We are a corporate entity. We have
diverse ways of expressing that corporate reality; hence we have a singular
essence and a plural expression. Often
we place concerns of expression over those of essence. We must keep the priorities in order. Only then can we have the full common life
that will lead us to an effective participation in Christ’s ministry.
6. Our Common Life, Liturgy: When
we gather weekly to hear the Word and share the meal we are not simply
perpetuating a tradition nor are we merely remembering what has happened. We are responding to a command, and we are
doing that in which we are assured Jesus Christ will be present among us. We enter into a solemn obligation and a
joyful opportunity. We are unable to do
this except through our common life.
Without this nourishment, our attempts at Christian action will be
frustrated. Liturgy is an activity of the People of God through which we
receive the gifts of God. It is not done
for or to the unordained by the clergy.
For all who participate, liturgy is the primary and continuing method of
Christian formation.[18]
7. Our Common Life, Christian Education: Christian
education is life long, and is a responsibility of the entire Body of
Christ. Though one person may facilitate
any given educational experience, we all have a responsibility to aid each
other in our continuing study of the Word, the tradition of the Church, and the
constantly evolving context in which we are called to minister. Continuing education (so common in most of
our occupational lives) and formation through liturgy are crucial if we are to
break free of the conceptualization of the unordained as “those unto whom
others minister.” It is a bad habit of
thinking into which both the unordained and clergy have fallen. Paul, and others, weren’t quite certain what
to do when the movement went beyond sending people out two by two. They had to adapt to a non-peripatetic
ecclesia. We seem to have the opposite
problem. The church inadvertently shields people against dealing with basic
spiritual questions. It does so by seeing
discernment as erecting barriers. We
tear down those barriers, thus making church membership about as simple and
meaningless as acquiring our Captain Midnight decoder rings. And when sincere “laypeople” figure it out,
they leave and go someplace that has a period of discernment before initiation,
and we act dumbfounded. Thus, we need
to rethink education and formation from the very foundations.[19]
8. Our Common Life, Community: If
we worship and learn together, but do not have bonds of love and concern
between us, as well as times of fellowship that exist for their own sakes, we
will be like
9. Our Common Life, Ministry: All
Christian ministry, whatever form it might take, has as its foundation and
intended outcome the proclamation of the Good News that we are reconciled to
God and each other through Jesus Christ our Lord. Other activities may be good and worthwhile,
but they are not Christian ministry. We
often hear people speak of “my ministry” or a group speak of “our ministry.” As a manner of speaking, there is nothing
particularly wrong with these phrases, but as indicators of ownership they miss
the mark. To return once again to the
premise in Thesis 2, the Church is not a democracy. It is a monarchy ruled by our Lord Jesus
Christ. Just as there is one Lord, one
Baptism, and one Gospel to proclaim, the Church only has one ministry--that of
our Lord. Individuals and groups discern
how they may best participate in that ministry, but should never lose sight of
the fact that it is the ministry of Jesus Christ in which we participate.
10. Occupation and Vocation: Some
of the unordained are fortunate enough to participate in the ministry of our
Lord in both occupation and vocation.
Most of us have to manage lives in which occupation and vocation do not
always mesh. Occupation is what we do in
order to support our dependents and ourselves.
Vocation is what we are called by God to do. Occupation is not to be despised, for it
often supports our vocation, but it is important that we know the difference
between the two. Indeed, I would argue
that ultimately we all have one vocation.
We are called to be reconciled to God and one another, to join ourselves
to Christ and one another as his Body—the People of God, and to proclaim the
Gospel in word and deed.
I
realize that this last proposition flies in the face of a great tradition in
Reformation theology (both Lutheran and Calvinist) elevating the spiritual
status of Christian endeavors in the secular occupations. Rather than take more space than the editor
has already given me, I will simply say that such well-intentioned efforts
ultimately lead to spiritual individualism to the extent that they take the
emphasis away from participation in the Body as a corporate People of God. The profound differences in the sociology of
sixteenth-century Central Europe and that of twenty-first Century metropolitan
[1] Carl E.
Braaten,
[2] The diacritical marks are as close as Microsoft Word will allow.
[3] A few examples are (all quotes are from the NRSV):
“So
then a Sabbath rest remains for the people of God (λάω
τοϋ Θεοϋ). Hebrews 4:9[3]
“By
faith Moses, when he was grown up, refused to be called a son of Pharaoh’s
daughter, choosing rather to share ill-treatment with the people of God
(λάω τοϋ Θεοϋ) than to enjoy
the fleeting pleasures of sin.”
Hebrews: 11:25
“Once
you were not a people, but now you are God’s people (λαός
Θεοϋ); once you had not received mercy, but now you have
received mercy.”
I Peter 2:10
In the same body of literature, the terms
λάω τοϋ Θεοϋ and
λαός Θεοϋ are used in ways that
parallel to έκκλησία (a people called
apart / the Church), σώματος
τοϋ Χρισταΰ (body of Christ)
and, in some cases, ίερεΰς (priest) ίεράτευμα
(priesthood). In the case of έκκλησία
and σώματος τοϋ
Χρισταΰ the point is intuitive. However, we need to look a bit more closely
at the use of priest and priesthood. The
terms are used in one of three ways:
1)
referring to the religious hierarchy of the
2)
referring to the person and character of Jesus [as in Hebrews 2:17 “Therefore he had to become like his brothers and
sisters in every respect so that he might be a merciful and faithful high
priest (άρχιερεύς)
in the service of God, to make a sacrifice of atonement for the sins of the
people”];
3)
referring to those called by Jesus [as in I Peter 2:9 “But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood
(ίεράτευμα), a holy nation,
God’s own people, in order that you may proclaim the mighty acts of him who
called you out of darkness into his marvelous light.”] .
[4] For an extended discussion of this point, see N. T. Wright, The New Testament and the People of God: Christian Origins and the Question of God, Vol. 1 (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1996), particularly Part IV.
[5] I Clem.3. The most readily available translation of
this source is Ante-Nicene Fathers: Vol. I, The Apostolic Fathers, Justin Martyr,
Irenaeus (Peabody, MA:
Hendrickson Publishers, 1999). This is a
reproduction of an 1885 publication, but the translation remains useful. This source is also available online at http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-01/anf01-05.htm. This specific citations are pp. 5-7 and 16-17
of the printed translation. For the web
version, go to Chapter III. Clement’s
letter was in response to a crisis. The
Church in
[6] This source
can be found in almost any comprehensive collection of documents of the
[7] Luther’s Works, Vol. 40: Church and Ministry II, edited by J. J. Pelikan, H. C. Oswald & H. T. Lehmann (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1958), pp. 18ff. For a more detailed discussion, see Jaroslav Pelikan, Spirit Versus Structure: Luther and the Institutions of the Church (New York: Harper & Row, 1968), pp. 32-49.
[8] Apology of the Augsburg Confession, Article XXII, The Book of Concord: The Confessions of the Evangelical Lutheran Church, translated and edited by Theodore G. Tappert (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1959), pp 236-238.
[9] “Treatise on
the Power and Primacy of the Pope,” Book of
[10] Book
of
[11] L. DeAne
Lagerquist, The Lutherans (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1999), p.
124. Susan Wilds McArver, “’A Spiritual
Wayside Inn’: Lutherans, the new South and Cultural Change in
[12] Burton J. Bledstein, The
Culture of Professionalism: The Middle Class and the Development of Higher
Education in America (New York: Norton, 1976), passim. This use of the word
“laity” actually predates the period Bledstein studies. Consider the references given for the word in
the Oxford
English Dictionary: “Unprofessional people, as opposed to those who
follow some learned profession, to artists, etc. 1832
[13] A good deal has been
written on this subject. I will cite three examples indicating the range of the
literature. One of the earliest serious
treatments was a prophetic book by theologian/sociologist Peter Berger, The
Noise of Solemn Assemblies: Religious Commitment and the Religious
Establishment in America (Garden City: Doubleday, 1961). Berger buttresses his argument with a
considerable amount of empirical data.
Four years later an investigative reporter and columnist published a
critical appraisal commissioned by the Anglican Church of Canada: Pierre
Berton, The Comfortable Pew (Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott,
1965). Berger and Berton offer
criticisms of clergy as well as the laity.
Both deal with the clerical perception and the lay self-definition. A little over a decade later John S. Savage
presented a summary of research on a dominant type emerging from increasing
numbers of empirical studies, The Apathetic
and Bored Church Member: Psychological and Theological Implications (Pittsford,
NY: LEAD Consultants, Inc., 1976).
[14] While
several printed collections are available, (e.g.
Austin Flannery, O.P., editor, Vatican Council II, Volume 1: The Conciliar
and Post Conciliar Documents (Grand Rapids: Costello Publishing
Company, Inc., 1975), the
[15] Catechism of the Catholic Church (New York: Doubleday, 1995), especially pp. 224-228. For those who have other editions, see Part One, Section Two, Chapter Three, Article 9, Paragraph 2 “The Church—People of God, Body of Christ, Temple of the Holy Spirit,” I, II and III. The necessity of citation from this source by Part, Section, Chapter, Article, and Paragraph was made clear when my editor looked up the cited portion by page number. My reference was intended to lead him to “The Body of Christ.” In his edition the cited pages led him to “Outside the Church There is No Salvation.”
[16] Article 14 in both the “Augsburg Confession”
and “The Apology of the Augsburg Confession” (Book of Concord, p. 36
and 214) make clear the need for a regular call to the office of public
preaching and administration of the sacraments.
The process, of course, is a function of the entire People of God.
[17]Some
will see in these propositions the influence of Carl E. Braaten, Principles
in Lutheran Theology (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1983). Certainly Braaten’s grounding in eschatology
is relevant here, and my talking points take as given living in the tension
between the realities of this world, and the even more compelling realities of
the
[18] Our
worship life will be significantly enhanced if we continue to recover the
fullness of our tradition, including the Daily office.
[19] A good start for any
congregation would be instituting a Cathechumenate program, which has the great
advantage of both providing a structure for bringing adults into the Church and
at the same time placing the entire congregation is a process of continual
catechesis. The
[20] My colleagues on the Editorial Council join me in the invitation to write letters or article-length responses. For those who prefer private exchanges, I will respond to everyone who contacts me on this issue. My e-mail address is G-Singleton@neiu.edu.