L Cole Harper

Many other problems stem from the class division within the church between the clergy and laity (i.e., between the ordained leaders and the non-ordained members). As a missionary myself, I am not opposed to paid, full-time ministry positions. Scripture contains ample support for vocational ministry. Israel’s priests fed themselves from the offerings and sacrifices of the Jewish people; God himself established this pattern in the Mosaic law.[1] Paul instructed the early church to compensate its leaders.[2] Even Jesus and the disciples depended on the financial support of a group of women.[3] Unfortunately, the distinction of a professional class of Christians in the church has its dangers.

Ideally, clergy would serve the laity and equip them for the work of the ministry. The laity would receive from clergy vision, encouragement, training, and resources that empower the life of faith. Instead, it seems that the divide has resulted in the abdication of responsibility. Like unused muscles, the great majority of the body has atrophied due to an overdependence on its leaders.

We have grown accustomed to a system in which there are some Christians “in ministry” and some who are not. In order to accomplish their ministry, clergy may enlist the help of lay volunteers – but far too often as less important aides to the cause. The truth is that all Christians ought to be “in ministry.” Each member has a unique gift and function. There are no vestigial organs in the body of Christ.[4]

The Priesthood of All Believers

One of the most significant doctrines central to the Protestant Reformation was that of the priesthood of all believers. Prior to that time, the gulf between the priests and the laity continually widened. Priests conducted services in Latin, many laypeople saw their role as merely watching the priest take communion, and sometimes there were even screens and railings that separated the clergy from the laity.[5]

Martin Luther wrote,

There is no true, basic difference between laymen and priests . . . between religious and secular, except for the sake of office and work, but not for the sake of status. They are all of the spiritual estate, all are truly priests, bishops, and popes. But they do not all have the same work to do.[6]

He saw in Scripture a commission for all baptized believers to minister the Word to one another, pray for one another, and confess their sins to one another. The only mediator one needed was Jesus Christ, not a priest.[7]

The Unintended Consequence: Consumer Christianity

Many instances have convinced me that we must reform once again and reassert the ministry of all believers. My experience with one outreach committee alarmed me. At the close of one of our meetings, the chair asked an older man, who had served for a long time on the committee, to pray. He sheepishly declined and informed us, “I am no pastor.” Laypeople have developed a misunderstanding of the role of a pastor.

Both the clergy and laity sometimes view spiritual or ministry-related tasks as the responsibility of the pastor. I know multiple laypeople that left churches because their pastor did not call or visit them after the loss of a loved one, despite other members of the church doing so. On the other hand, I have seen a pastor blessing the communion elements before vacation, so the church can still receive the Lord’s Supper that Sunday. They did not believe he needed to be there in order for them to take communion, but they (somewhat superstitiously) did not see anyone else as qualified to bless the elements.

Many pastors cringe, and rightfully so, when they hear a new ministry idea introduced with the words, “Do you know what y’all should do…?” We have erroneously conditioned churchgoers to expect the pastor to do all of the ministry of the church. The seeker-friendly church model of the previous generation turned church into a spectator sport. For decades many Christian leaders have been warning about the effects of consumerism creeping into the church. Churchgoers often view the clergy (along with worship leaders, staff, etc.) as the producers and themselves as the recipients of ministry.

Sharing the Load of Spiritual Leadership

There is a fair argument from Scripture that you are not supposed to have a pastor. After Pentecost and the beginning of the church, there seems to be a pattern of planting churches with multiple leaders, a plurality of elders. In fact, the noun pastor is only used once in the New Testament to refer to church leaders.[8] Every other time it is used to refer to literal shepherds or Christ himself.

In the early church, we see the apostles appointing multiple elders in the churches they plant. For example, in Acts 14:23 Luke reports, “Paul and Barnabas appointed elders for them in each church and, with prayer and fasting, committed them to the Lord, in whom they had put their trust.” In a letter to Titus, Paul gives these instructions: “The reason I left you in Crete was that you might put in order what was left unfinished and appoint elders in every town, as I directed you.”[9] Our foisting of ministry onto a single person in most churches seems to be a departure from the apostolic norm. Multiple leaders must share the load of spiritual leadership.

Jesus’ Radical Egalitarianism

There is only one class of Christian. Somehow, we have divided into two. As an introduction to his scathing indictment of the scribes and Pharisees, Christ himself flattened the religious hierarchy. He forbade the wielding of titles, saying, “You are not to be called ‘Rabbi,’ for you have one Teacher, and you are all brothers. And do not call anyone on earth ‘father,’ for you have one Father, and he is in heaven. Nor are you to be called instructors, for you have one Instructor, the Messiah.”[10]

Jesus modeled this new egalitarian structure of the church during his last supper with the disciples on the night he was betrayed. He assumed the role of a slave and washed the feet of the of the young men who were tasked with carrying on his mission. Christ embodied the paradigm: leaders serve. They empower others to lead and serve. And there is no distinction between them.

Unfortunately, many laypeople believe they could never be in ministry because “that’s the pastor’s job.” They see someone on stage in robes, vestments, a collar, or a pulpit, and they believe he is God’s man, in a different category of Christian.[11] It seems many laypeople believe their role is to be a good spectator on Sunday mornings, tithe, and volunteer their time every now and then. We have done them a great disservice! What they need is an example. They need to see a priest willing to take the role of a servant, get down on their level, and call them friend.

The good news is that we have such a great high priest, and he’s calling us to follow in his footsteps.

---

[1] See Leviticus 6-7 for several examples.

[2] 1 Corinthians 9:14 and 1 Timothy 5:17-18

[3] Luke 8:1-3

[4] 1 Corinthians 12

[5] 5 Things You Didn’t Know About Communion in the Middle Ages – EpicPew

[6] Luther, “To the Christian Nobility of the German Nation,” in Luther’s Works, 44:129.

[7] Luther’s Doctrine of the Priesthood of All Believers: The Importance for Today – Credo Magazine

[8] The one instance is in Ephesians 4:11. The verb form of the word is used in connection with church leaders more than once (e.g., Acts 20:28 and 1 Peter 5:2).

[9] Titus 1:5

[10] Matthew 23:8-10

[11] It may be personal preference, but I do not think it is coincidence that all the best leaders I’ve ever had wore blue jeans and sat or stood on the same level as me.