Let's Talk
Living Theology inthe Metropolitan ChicagoSynod
Volume 9, Number 1
Spring 2004
The Vocation of the Laity
_____________________________________________________________
THE LAITY, VOCATION, AND THE CHURCH:
A VIEW FROM THE PEW
Gregory Holmes Singleton
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 theBody and Blood of Jesus Christ, I am ready to go into the world in the name ofour risen Lord. At other times thisshout covers confusion. Underneath thebravado is the unspoken timid response, “OK. How?” My guess is that I am notalone in this unuttered question. Thoseof us who sit in the pews often have an underdeveloped vocationalself-understanding. We live ourecclesial lives in a limbo created by a residual category. We are the unordained, the laity.
Auseful summary statement of this problem appeared in a witty message on“Liturgical Ranks” that made the rounds on the Internet about a decadeago. I have seen it in various forms onLutheran, Anglican, Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox distributionlists. Whatever the variation, a greatdeal of attention is given to precise definitions of the office, function, andvesture of bishops, deans, presbyters, and deacons. After endless details(including more than anyone ever wanted to know about dalmatics), the rest ofthe Body of Christ is dismissed with an economy of words: “The Laity, the Holy People of God (a.k.a ‘uscommon folk’) show up from time to time and we tend to wear whatever weplease.”
Atthe end of this brief essay I will pose several propositions for furtherdiscussion as we seek an understanding of the nature and role of the laity, butfirst I will present a little etymology, a little history, and (perhaps) alittle theology as an invitation to the reader to think along with me and talkwith others about the laity (or perhaps more correctly, the unordained) assomething more than a residual category—the lumpen masses in the pew to whomministry is directed. Basic to all thatfollows is my assumption that talk of vocation, clerical or lay, must startwith some discussion of ecclesiology, the doctrine of the church—that doctrinethat Carl Braaten asserts is the most underdeveloped part of our theology.[1] One may find ecclesiology a strange startingpoint for discussing the vocation of the laity, but a search for the origins ofthe word “laity” leads us to the earliest documents on the doctrine of theChurch. These documents immediately begthe question whether speaking of the unordained as the laity is correct. The term is derived from various portions ofthe New Testament where λάω τοϋΘεοϋ[2] (people of God) or λαόςΘεοϋ (God’s people) is used as a collective and corporateterm just as “Church,” “Body of Christ” and “priesthood” are part of thecollective identity of those who have been called, baptized, and sealed.[3] Indeed, both etymologically andontologically, the New Testament literature leads us to think of ourselves interms of a peoplehood of the redeemed called apart from the world and sent backto it in order to proclaim redemption.[4] Obviously, we know from Acts and variousepistles that the Apostolic Church contained avariety of ministerial leaders including bishops, presbyters, deacons,teachers, and others. The point is thatthey were a part of a corporate whole known as the Church, the Body of Christ,a royal priesthood, a holy nation, and God’s people. It would be a peculiar ecclesiology thatplaced those in ordained ministry outside the laity, or People of God.
Towardthe end of the first century (c. 96 AD) Clement of Rome used the term for thecollective identity of all Christians (laity) as a separate identity for theunordained.[5] Clement’s writings achieved great popularityamong those Christians who left written material by the end of the secondcentury AD. His views had obvious impacton Irenaeus and Eusebius. The divisionClement suggests within the Body of Christ is obviously more than a simplefunctional classification. It was perhapsinevitable that the Church, always tempted to be of the world as well as in it,would adopt a hierarchical structure with assumed ontological differencesbetween those in Holy Orders and those who were not. The relocation of the priesthood from theentire Body of Christ to a specific location within it was perhaps the most dramaticoutcome of this development. When Churchand secular society became increasingly intertwined following the fourthcentury, secular hierarchies (consisting of certain ranks of laity) andecclesiastical hierarchy often had similar interests, but they could just asoften collide. By the end of the 13thcentury, some sources suggest a state of tension between those in Holy Orders(including members of Religious communities) and the laity. The primeexample is Boniface VIII’s Papal Bull of 1296 entitled Celricos Laicos, which begins: "Antiquity teaches us thatlaymen are in a high degree hostile to the clergy, a fact which is also madeclear by the experiences of the present times; in as much as, not contentwithin their own bounds, they strive after what is forbidden and loose thereins in pursuit of what is unlawful. Nor have they the prudence to considerthat all jurisdiction is denied to them over the clergy - over both the personsand 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."
Inthe Sixteenth Century the Reformation did a great deal to modify thetension. Luther’s 1523 treatise Concerning the Ministry effectively reversedClement’s conflation of presbyter and priest, particularly in the sectionentitled “A Priest is not identical with Presbyter or Minister—for one is bornto be priest, one becomes a minister.”[7] In the Lutheran confessional literature wefind references to reception of the chalice by the laity[8]and lay absolution[9], but thedivision 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 thesalvation of their souls, we subscribe Dr. Luther’s Small and Large Catechismsas both of them are contained in his printed works. They are “the layman’s Bible” and containeverything which Holy Scripture discusses at greater length and which aChristian must know for his salvation.”[10]
Certainly thisbrings the laity into theological discourse, albeit at an elementary level, butthe distinction between the ordained and the unordained remains and clearlyimplies differing levels of sophistication in matters of the faith. The point here is not to suggest that thedistinction between the ordained and unordained was incorrect, but to point outthat the unified Body of Christ implied by the term “People of God” was notthus recovered.
The laity have occupied a greater role in the Church in recentcenturies. Calvin’s Reformation openedordained ministry to a larger number of people and a wider set of functions inthe Church, although ordained deacons and ruling elders in the AmericanPresbyterian churches are still referred to as “laypersons.” The circumstances of the Church of England inthe colonies of North America led to increasedexecutive and financial power of the laity in parishes of that communion. The voluntary associations of a variety ofBritish-origin denominations in nineteenth-century America placed laypeople, includingwomen, in key decision-making positions in Christian education and home missionefforts. Among American Lutherans,laypeople since the late nineteenth century have been called upon to lend theirsecular expertise (particularly in economic and business affairs) to theChurch.[11] The irony here is that this reliance upon theexpertise of the laity increased as the word “laity” came to become synonymouswith “amateur” in a wide variety of professions.[12] Thus the Church came to rely on professionalswho were far from laity in their occupations (the avoidance of the word“vocation” here is deliberate). But thelaity, both by clerical perception and lay self-definition, continued to bedefined as unsophisticated in the realm of faith.[13] In large part the perception andself-definition were and are accurate. Certainly this does not have anything to do with an inequitabledistribution of talent. We are long pastthe time when the pastor is most likely better educated than any one else inthe congregation. Nevertheless, from myperspective the laity most often do notrespond to the repeated invitations of the clergy to join in continued serioustheological discussion. I have gainedthis perspective as a member of several congregations over a temporal span ofsix decades and a geographical range including Alabama,Tennessee, California,New York and Illinois. My best guess is that Clement’s First Century AD division of the Churchinto clergy and laity continues as an unquestioned paradigm for most.
Oh, there have been important andsignificant exceptions to this generalization. Ironically, during the past four decades the Roman CatholicChurch has often been at the cutting edge in restoring a New Testamentunderstanding of the laity as partners in the work of the whole People ofGod. Three documents from the SecondVatican 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]
Likeso much else in Vatican II, this has had a ripple effect throughout theChristian world. In our own tradition obvious examples are theintroduction of lay Assisting Ministers in the Liturgy and the inclusion of layvoting members in all aspects and levels of Church governance. The latter example, however, isproblematic. Voting members are notnecessarily informed by deep and continuous theological discourse. This is not to say that lay voting memberscould not be informed by deep and continuous theological discourse. We can and should participate in Churchdeliberations from that perspective, but those of us who are lay members of theChurch have not developed a clearly articulated vocationalself-understanding. Furthermore weoften perceive ourselves as the objects of ministry rather than a part of theministry of the Church. In large part wehave come to this point because we demand greater access to the highest levelsof secular education, but are content with a more limited religiouseducation. There are exceptions of whichI am aware and of a handful of congregations with well-attended continuingeducation programs for adults, but such examples are rare. Even in those rare exceptions, the laityinfrequently perceive themselves as active participants in the ministry ofChrist’s Church. Beyond this, and ofgreater importance, our formation is incomplete. It needs to be ongoing.
We need areformation to address this situation, but I must make clear at the outset thatsuch a reformation should not be anticlerical. I do not for one moment advocate lay presidency at Eucharist or similarsuggestions. There is a legitimatedistinction to be made between the ordained and the unordained, but thatdistinction needs to be rooted in an appreciation of a corporate identity thatunites us as the People of God, the Body of Christ, the royal priesthood—inshort, the Church.[16] Perhaps we should cease using the word“laity” when we mean “unordained.” Weare all People of God. Those of us whoare unordained should not hesitate to place ourselves under the authority ofpastors who themselves are under the authority of the Gospel. That is a shared submission. We need to be fed by those pastors with Wordand Sacrament. We need to be partnerswith pastors in the ministry of the Church beyond the confines of the sacredspaces of our Sunday assemblies. We needto 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 theLiturgy and as a commitment to take what we have been given into the world andto return every Lord’s Day. Most of myordained friends are anxiously waiting for such a reformation and the recoveryof a New Testament vision of the People of God.
Ihave no idea precisely how this reformation is to be accomplished (although aclose reading of the baptismal rite in the Lutheran Book of Worshipmight be a good start). I am certainthat we will need to think theologically. I am certain that we will need to listen respectfully to oneanother. I am certain that we will needto pray together as often as (perhaps more often than) we talk together. I am certain that our self-awareness as theBody of Christ and as the People of God is essential before we gain aself-awareness of our status as the unordained. The invitation to the reader mentioned earlier in this article consistsof some suggestions to start the conversation. My regard for Blessed Martin is too high to call these suggestions“theses.” Perhaps they are talkingpoints. I will limit myself to ten. Ninety-five would probably be pushing it.[17]
1. The Gospel and Theology: TheGospel provides us with a radical vision based on our reconciliation with Godand 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 actionand for the life of the Church. Doingtheology, both thinking and acting, is living in the tension between historyand eternity. The eternal Logos took onflesh 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 calledto live in the necessity of historical reality and in the transcendent newcreation simultaneously. If we opt forthe historical reality only, then we have no source for our ministry. If we opt for the transcendent only, then wehave no object of ministry.
2. The Church: The Church is not simply how we choose to respond tothe Gospel. Jesus Christ instituted theChurch 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 aliving spiritual reality, and he is the head.
3. The Priesthood: There is only one priest, andthat is our Lord Jesus Christ. The“priesthood of all believers” does not mean that we are all priests, likeChrist. It means that we have beenenfolded into Christ at the time of our baptism, and participate in the RoyalPriesthood of our Lord. Through thatpriesthood we re-enact the story of salvation, break bread, and share the mealuntil Christ comes again. We do this inorder to receive the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, the nourishment we need toproclaim and live the Gospel.
4. The Laity: The laity consists of all of the people of God whohave responded to the Gospel message. This includes the person baptized just this instant as well as thosewhose 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 themaintenance of the Church as an institutional incarnation of the Word and thenurturing of other laity so that the entire body may more effectivelyparticipate in the ministry of Jesus Christ. Theirs is the ministry of word and sacrament. They maintain the Church, that institutionwhich 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: Inordinary conversation there is no problem in talking about a singular layperson. Conceptually, however, it is better for us tothink of ourselves as part of the laity, if indeed we continue to use thatterm. We are a corporate entity. We havediverse ways of expressing that corporate reality; hence we have a singularessence and a plural expression. Oftenwe place concerns of expression over those of essence. We must keep the priorities in order. Only then can we have the full common lifethat will lead us to an effective participation in Christ’s ministry.
6. Our Common Life, Liturgy: Whenwe gather weekly to hear the Word and share the meal we are not simplyperpetuating a tradition nor are we merely remembering what has happened. We are responding to a command, and we aredoing that in which we are assured Jesus Christ will be present among us. We enter into a solemn obligation and ajoyful opportunity. We are unable to dothis except through our common life. Without this nourishment, our attempts at Christian action will befrustrated. Liturgy is an activity of the People of God through which wereceive the gifts of God. It is not donefor or to the unordained by the clergy. For all who participate, liturgy is the primary and continuing method ofChristian formation.[18]
7. Our Common Life, Christian Education: Christianeducation is life long, and is a responsibility of the entire Body ofChrist. Though one person may facilitateany given educational experience, we all have a responsibility to aid eachother in our continuing study of the Word, the tradition of the Church, and theconstantly evolving context in which we are called to minister. Continuing education (so common in most ofour occupational lives) and formation through liturgy are crucial if we are tobreak free of the conceptualization of the unordained as “those unto whomothers minister.” It is a bad habit ofthinking into which both the unordained and clergy have fallen. Paul, and others, weren’t quite certain whatto do when the movement went beyond sending people out two by two. They had to adapt to a non-peripateticecclesia. We seem to have the oppositeproblem. The church inadvertently shields people against dealing with basicspiritual questions. It does so by seeingdiscernment as erecting barriers. Wetear down those barriers, thus making church membership about as simple andmeaningless 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 needto rethink education and formation from the very foundations.[19]
8. Our Common Life, Community: Ifwe worship and learn together, but do not have bonds of love and concernbetween us, as well as times of fellowship that exist for their own sakes, wewill be like St. Paul'sclanging cymbal. Community can bedifficult to build and sustain in a modern metropolitan environment, but thecommandment of love implies that we must be intentional about this aspect ofour life together. Fortunately, a lovingcommunity can be one of the side-benefits of a catechumenate program,continuing Christian education, and Bible study (including such variants asLectio Divinia).
9. Our Common Life, Ministry: AllChristian ministry, whatever form it might take, has as its foundation andintended outcome the proclamation of the Good News that we are reconciled toGod and each other through Jesus Christ our Lord. Other activities may be good and worthwhile,but they are not Christian ministry. Weoften hear people speak of “my ministry” or a group speak of “our ministry.” As a manner of speaking, there is nothingparticularly wrong with these phrases, but as indicators of ownership they missthe mark. To return once again to thepremise in Thesis 2, the Church is not a democracy. It is a monarchy ruled by our Lord JesusChrist. Just as there is one Lord, oneBaptism, and one Gospel to proclaim, the Church only has one ministry--that ofour Lord. Individuals and groups discernhow they may best participate in that ministry, but should never lose sight ofthe fact that it is the ministry of Jesus Christ in which we participate.
10. Occupation and Vocation: Someof the unordained are fortunate enough to participate in the ministry of ourLord in both occupation and vocation. Most of us have to manage lives in which occupation and vocation do notalways mesh. Occupation is what we do inorder to support our dependents and ourselves. Vocation is what we are called by God to do. Occupation is not to be despised, for itoften supports our vocation, but it is important that we know the differencebetween the two. Indeed, I would arguethat ultimately we all have one vocation. We are called to be reconciled to God and one another, to join ourselvesto Christ and one another as his Body—the People of God, and to proclaim theGospel in word and deed.
Irealize that this last proposition flies in the face of a great tradition inReformation theology (both Lutheran and Calvinist) elevating the spiritualstatus of Christian endeavors in the secular occupations. Rather than take more space than the editorhas already given me, I will simply say that such well-intentioned effortsultimately lead to spiritual individualism to the extent that they take theemphasis away from participation in the Body as a corporate People of God. The profound differences in the sociology ofsixteenth-century Central Europe and that of twenty-first Century metropolitan America shouldcause us to revisit the nature of the vocation of the unordained. I will be glad to take this argument furtherin my answers to readers’ responses.[20] All of these talking points constitute aninvitation to discourse, and this journal is a readily available forum. Whether you want to say “Amen!” or “There areserious problems with your perspective,” Let’s Talk.
Gregory Holmes Singleton
Member, Immanuel, Evanston
[1] Carl E.Braaten, Mother Church: Ecclesiology and Ecumenism(Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1998), pp 27-30.
[2] Thediacritical marks are as close as Microsoft Word will allow.
[3] A few examples are (all quotes are from the NRSV):
“Sothen a Sabbath rest remains for the people of God (λάωτοϋ Θεοϋ). Hebrews 4:9[3]
“Byfaith Moses, when he was grown up, refused to be called a son of Pharaoh’sdaughter, choosing rather to share ill-treatment with the people of God(λάω τοϋ Θεοϋ) than to enjoythe fleeting pleasures of sin.”
Hebrews: 11:25
“Onceyou were not a people, but now you are God’s people (λαόςΘεοϋ); once you had not received mercy, but now you havereceived mercy.”
I Peter 2:10
In the same body of literature, the termsλάω τοϋ Θεοϋ andλαός Θεοϋ are used in ways thatparallel to έκκλησία (a people calledapart / the Church), σώματοςτοϋ Χρισταΰ (body of Christ)and, in some cases, ίερεΰς (priest) ίεράτευμα(priesthood). In the case of έκκλησίαand σώματος τοϋΧρισταΰ the point is intuitive. However, we need to look a bit more closelyat the use of priest and priesthood. Theterms are used in one of three ways:
1)referring to the religious hierarchy of the Temple at that time;
2)referring to the person and character of Jesus [as in Hebrews 2:17 “Therefore he had to become like his brothers andsisters in every respect so that he might be a merciful and faithful highpriest (άρχιερεύς)in the service of God, to make a sacrifice of atonement for the sins of thepeople”];
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 whocalled you out of darkness into his marvelous light.”] .
[4] For anextended discussion of this point, see N. T. Wright, The New Testament and the Peopleof 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 ofthis source is Ante-Nicene Fathers: Vol. I, The Apostolic Fathers, Justin Martyr,Irenaeus (Peabody, MA:Hendrickson Publishers, 1999). This is areproduction 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 16-17of the printed translation. For the webversion, go to Chapter III. Clement’sletter was in response to a crisis. TheChurch in Corinthhad deposed a few πρεσβύτροι(presbyters/elders). Clement encouragedthe community to repent and restore these leaders to their positions. In doing so, he put forward an ecclesiologyin which those in various orders of ordained ministry were discussed incontrast to the laity. In chapters XL –XLIV Clement outlines in significant detail the dignity and function of theorders. In over 1,000 words given overto the discussion of these distinctions, only the following eleven pertain tothe laity: “The layman is bound by the laws that pertain to laymen.” Clement does not state what those laws mightbe, unless they are found in the implied admonitions to respect those inministerial orders. While separating theChurch into the ordained and the laity, Clement also conflated the priestlyidentity of the whole body of Christ with the office of presbyter. (On this point, see Jaroslav Pelikan, TheChristian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine: Vol. 1, TheEmergence of the Catholic Tradition (100-600) (Chicago: University ofChicago Press, 1971), p. 25.) This wasthe start of a long and persistent tendency to view the priestly function ofthe Church as embodied in the offices of presbyter and bishop (the latter reckonedto contain the summary fullness of all orders of ministry) rather than in thebody of Christ as a whole, and to define the laity as “the others.”
[6] This sourcecan be found in almost any comprehensive collection of documents of the Medieval Church,and an accurate translation is available from Fordham University’s“Medieval Source Book” web site: http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/b8-clericos.html.
[7] Luther’sWorks, 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 JaroslavPelikan, Spirit Versus Structure: Luther and the Institutions of the Church(New York: Harper & Row, 1968), pp. 32-49.
[8] Apology ofthe Augsburg Confession, Article XXII, The Book of Concord: The Confessions of theEvangelical Lutheran Church, translated and edited by Theodore G.Tappert (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1959), pp 236-238.
[9] “Treatise onthe Power and Primacy of the Pope,” Book of Concord, p. 331.67. This was not seen as normative, however: “Soin an emergency even a layman absolves and becomes the minister and pastor ofanother.”
[10] Bookof Concord,p. 465.5. A Similar statement appears inFormula of Concord: Solid Declaration (1577),see ibid., p. 505.8.
[11] L. DeAneLagerquist, The Lutherans (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1999), p.124. Susan Wilds McArver, “’A SpiritualWayside Inn’: Lutherans, the new South and Cultural Change in South Carolina, 1886-1918,” (Ph.D.Dissertation, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina, 1995) pp. 244-255. This parallels similar trends in layparticipation in Reformed and Free Church traditions at the same time: see Gregory Holmes Singleton, “Protestant VoluntaryOrganizations and the Making of Victorian America,” in Victorian America, ed.Daniel Walker Howe (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1976); Gregory Holmes Singleton, Religion in the City of Angels:American Protestant Culture and Urbanization, Los Angeles 1850-1930 (AnnArbor: UMI Research Press, 1979) Chs. 4-6; Ben Primer, Protestants and American Business Methods (Ann Arbor: UMIResearch Press, 1979).
[12] Burton J. Bledstein, TheCulture of Professionalism: The Middle Class and the Development of HigherEducation 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 inthe OxfordEnglish Dictionary: “Unprofessional people, as opposed to those whofollow some learned profession, to artists, etc. 1832AUSTIN Jurispr. xxxviii, The laity (ornon-lawyer part of the community) are competent to conceive the more generalrules. 1875 HELPS Ess., Organiz. DailyLife 107 Artists are wont to think the criticisms of the laity rather weakand superfluous. 1880 H. QUILTER in Macm.Mag. Sept. 393 Most of the laity still connect the word pre-Raphaelitismwith visions of gaunt melancholy women. 1898 Allbutt's Syst. Med. V. 281 The disease being one of the existenceof which the laity may be said to be ignorant.”
[13] A good deal has beenwritten on this subject. I will cite three examples indicating the range of theliterature. One of the earliest serioustreatments was a prophetic book by theologian/sociologist Peter Berger, TheNoise of Solemn Assemblies: Religious Commitment and the ReligiousEstablishment in America (Garden City: Doubleday, 1961). Berger buttresses his argument with aconsiderable amount of empirical data. Four years later an investigative reporter and columnist published acritical appraisal commissioned by the Anglican Church of Canada: PierreBerton, The Comfortable Pew (Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott,1965). Berger and Berton offercriticisms 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. Savagepresented a summary of research on a dominant type emerging from increasingnumbers of empirical studies, The Apatheticand Bored Church Member: Psychological and Theological Implications (Pittsford,NY: LEAD Consultants, Inc., 1976).
[14] Whileseveral printed collections are available, (e.g.Austin Flannery, O.P., editor, Vatican Council II, Volume 1: The Conciliarand Post Conciliar Documents (Grand Rapids: Costello PublishingCompany, Inc., 1975), the Vaticanmaintains an authoritative web site athttp://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/ with the documents available in severallanguages. In order to access thedocuments, one will need to know the Latin titles. Constitution of the Liturgy = Sacrosanctum Concilium; Constitution of the Church = Lumen Gentium; Decree on the Apostolate of the Laity = ApostolicamActuositatem.
[15] Catechismof the Catholic Church (New York: Doubleday, 1995), especially pp.224-228. For those who have othereditions, see Part One, Section Two, Chapter Three, Article 9, Paragraph 2 “TheChurch—People of God, Body of Christ, Temple of the Holy Spirit,” I, II andIII. The necessity of citation from thissource by Part, Section, Chapter, Article, and Paragraph was made clear when myeditor looked up the cited portion by page number. My reference was intended to lead him to “TheBody of Christ.” In his edition thecited 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. 36and 214) make clear the need for a regular call to the office of publicpreaching and administration of the sacraments. The process, of course, is a function of the entire People of God.
[17]Somewill see in these propositions the influence of Carl E. Braaten, Principlesin Lutheran Theology (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1983). Certainly Braaten’s grounding in eschatologyis relevant here, and my talking points take as given living in the tensionbetween the realities of this world, and the even more compelling realities ofthe Kingdom of God toward which we are living. (see pp. 46-62) Similarly, my talking points take as givenboth the Christocentric and Sacramental principles Braaten elaborates. (see Chs. 4 and 5)
[18] Ourworship life will be significantly enhanced if we continue to recover thefullness of our tradition, including the Daily office.
[19] A good start for anycongregation would be instituting a Cathechumenate program, which has the greatadvantage of both providing a structure for bringing adults into the Church andat the same time placing the entire congregation is a process of continualcatechesis. The EvangelicalLutheran Churchin Americahas adapted the Roman Catholic Rite of Christian Initiation of Adults. See Welcome to Christ: Lutheran Rites for theCatechumenate (Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 1997), Welcome to Christ: A Lutheran Introductionto the Catechumenate ( Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 1997), Welcome to Christ: A LutheranCatechetical Guide (Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 1997).
[20] My colleagueson the Editorial Council join me in the invitation to write letters orarticle-length responses. For those whoprefer private exchanges, I will respond to everyone who contacts me on thisissue. My e-mail address is G-Singleton@neiu.edu.