I've been a licensed or ordained minister since 1965, but I've never been comfortable being referred to as "Reverend" or a member of the "clergy".
In the first place, there's simply no Biblical precedent for either of those labels being applied to certain believers who are to be elevated above the rest. There are of course respected congregational offices like pastor, overseer, elder, bishop, deacon, evangelist, and teacher, to name only a few, but these are functional descriptions of how people serve, not titles separating professional "clergy" from "laity".
The Greek form of the word "laity" in the New Testament is "laos",
which simply means "people", or "the people of God". There is no suggestion in scripture that when someone is appointed to some church office that he or she is no longer a part of the laos. This is in contrast to some denominations where the ordained clergy cannot even be considered members of the congregations they serve, but have their membership in the district council or presbytery to which they belong.
One of the published studies that made a big impression on me years ago was "The Christian Calling" by Virgil Vogt, then a member of Reba Place, a Mennonite intentional community. He makes a clear case that all believers are "called", and all have fundamentally the same "calling", that of continuing the ministry Jesus began here on earth through his Body, the church. Our differing gifts merely shape how and in what setting we carry out that one calling, not the nature of the calling itself, for which we are ordained in our baptism.
This has been a defining and liberating concept for me: Our gifts differ, and our assignments are varied, but our status is the same, and our calling is one--to love, honor and serve God together in communities of faith we call the church.
Church historian Charles Jacobs,
in The Story of the Church, writes:
"In the beginning most of the work of the congregation
was done by people who had no official position.
It was voluntary service, freely rendered. By the middle
of the third century, it was done by the professional clergy.
Between clergymen and laity there was a sharp distinction.
The clergy, too, were divided into higher and lower grades.
In the higher grades were bishops, presbyters and deacons;
in the lower grade sub-deacons, lectors, exorcists,
acolytes and janitors.
All of them were inducted into office by some form of ordination,
and the idea of local organization had gone so far
that in some churches even the grave diggers were ordained.
Thus the work of the Church was passing out of the hands of the many
into those of the few, and these few were coming to be regarded
as belonging to a higher class."
So please just call me Harvey, a pastor, counselor and a forever member of the laos, the people.
6 comments:
I think it is interesting (note, not bad or wrong) that you view reverend and clergy as titles of authority in a different way than pastor or bishop. I really don't. Honestly, I struggle with "bishop," but I get that is because I didn't grow up with one, and I was taught from the beginning about autonomy of the local church, etc. Being in a tradition where laity are highly respected and granted the authority to do just about anything termed pastoral, I don't find "clergy" as anything with any more power, but simply a group where I can share ministry concerns. Granted, I say that as a person who straddles a weird line between the two.
As a woman who still sees many doors closed to me simply due to gender, I find titles like Rev. can be very important. I am not yet ordained, and therefore not a reverend, but various churches where I have supply preached have included it before my name simply to show that they are supportive of the ministry of me in particular and women in general (I did let them know before the title was used publicly that I did not hold that title). While I don't see myself as signing documents, etc. with the title, I imagine that when/if I am ordained, I will treasure it—not as something that places me above people (I don't believe it does)—but because it represents the church/conference joining in support of what I believe God's call on my life is. It is a reminder that the people I am charged with ministering to have also ministered to me. And I find that beautiful.
I am not a fan, at all, of pastors being members of the Presbtery rather than the local congregation, ecclesiastic silliness (from this gal who grew up Mennonite and now a member of a Presbyterian Church USA congregation 32 years). Most recently, PCUSA moved to trying to remove some of this gap between reverends and laity among its "elders" and refer to pastors or ministers or those who preach, as "teaching elders" and other elders as "ruling elders." Some chafe at the word "ruling" but that word "has less to do with managerial governance than with ruling out or measuring the work of ministry, the fidelity of communal and personal lives, and the progress of the gospel in the church." (according to PCUSA office on government). Personally I think they could have found a better term. I like your comments on the laos.
Thanks for the good word, Harvey. I resonate with what you convey here, "our calling is one--to love, honor and serve God together in communities of faith we call the church."
Sorry for such a late. late reply. I somehow failed to see your comment until today. I truly celebrate your upcoming ordination, and realize it may not seem fair for a male to state what I have in this piece when women in my denomination are just now beginning to get the recognition for their leadership gifts they have long deserved.
Maybe we have a semantic problem in part. Even the origin of the words ordain and ordination give me a bit of a problem, in that they suggest an ordering or ranking of people, some belonging to orders and others not. How can we maintain a theology of a priesthood of all believers and yet recognize the legitimacy and respect that goes with certain appointed roles in the community of faith?
Thanks for your great response!
Blessings!
Post a Comment