The Case Against Clergy

Time For A New View
The modern, Western Church defines itself with a theological foundation in the disciple-making command of Jesus in the Great Commission, and with a philosophical dynamic from the Protestant Reformation that insists on the priesthood of the believer. In its current form, however, the institutional Western Church actually stands in the way of both true discipleship and maximum world impact from its members.

The worldview of Christendom has become the Western Church’s largest export and its greatest hindrance. Because of the weight of our cultural and historical baggage and the depth of our traditional church assumptions, radical alternatives to traditional church forms are needed to restore the power to Western Christianity.

A Gift From A Guy Who Wore Metal Pants
“Christendom” refers to a relationship between the Church and the State that was inaugurated during the rule of the Roman emperor Constantine. His reign witnessed the exponential growth of a marginalized, persecuted Christianity. The Church was organic, decentralized, and powerful.

Constantine realized that nearly half of his entire empire was now professing allegiance to Christ. His legendary vision of a cross during battle gets center stage in our view of Church history. This becomes the mythical tipping point when we assume Christianity burst forth onto the world stage. One thing is definitely true: this was the beginning of Western culture and the Church was in the center of the culture. Being in the center isn't always a good thing.

What we often fail to realize is that Constantine probably made his decision to legitimize Christianity for numerous reasons, not the least of which was a shrewd political move. The emperor did what all the Roman leaders before him did. By bringing a conquered enemy’s gods into the Roman pantheon, and granting legitimate cultural status to both their priesthood and the locations where their religious faithful gathered to worship, those suddenly “set free” religiously lost their distinctiveness and the will to rebel. They were assimilated into the Roman Empire. Rome’s one great stipulation was that those new citizens revere Caesar—and by extension, the host culture—as divine. Most saw that as an inconsequential price for the freedoms and privileges they could gain.

So it was with the Christian Church. What was a dynamic movement that won converts by the sheer force of changed lives modeled in the toughest of circumstances rapidly became a legitimized religion whose centralized priesthood and distinctive, sacred buildings emerged as its defining cultural characteristics.

Scroll ahead to Martin Luther and the Protestant Reformation in the fifteenth century. Luther surveyed the religious landscape and proposed reformative measures to his Catholic Church. It was an unbalanced institution heavily invested in politics and real estate. Luther saw an institution populated by a class of professional priests, schooled in the mystical art of understanding the Scriptures, supported by those grateful enough to receive spiritual guidance. It was the priesthood’s main occupation to interpret the Scriptures for their parishioners. In this system there was no room for everyday followers of Jesus to fully exercise their own priesthood as the Bible commands. People accepted the status quo; they knew no different and probably assumed that that was the way things were supposed to be in the Kingdom of God.

Shaped By History and Environment
Our late-twentieth-century Church worldview is both heavily influenced by our history and mostly hidden from view. We all operate on certain assumptions—those dynamics we implicitly and unconsciously understand as the way things ought to be. Because they are on this deep level, most of our assumptions go unchallenged.

Many of our guiding assumptions are deeply rooted in Christendom:
• We expect the Church to be in the center of culture, with a valued and respected voice. When this is no longer the case, we assume that it is the culture’s fault, not the Church’s.
• Our default is to equate the concept of Church with a place, not as a people. We are building-centric in our approach to ministry. This is one of the major contributing factors to our spiritual schizophrenia—the “sacred” and “secular” approach to life—where I can live separate existences depending on whether I am at work or at home or whom I am with.
• We demand dynamic performances from professionals, whom we grade and reward with our financial contributions and our continuing attendance at their performances. The focus of our Christian life is Sunday mornings; we “get through” the rest of the week to return to church.
• There is a vast difference between “clergy” and “laity” regarding the expectations of one’s life-investment. We expect much from professionals and little from ourselves. We have been conditioned to remain passive attendees.
• Laypeople’s chief contributions to the movement of the Kingdom of God are generally twofold: sources of income and bridges for church growth. Members are encouraged toward financial giving to the local church and to professional missionaries around the globe, and to invite their “unchurched” contacts to Sunday morning gatherings so that professional performances can change their minds. How much of the typical church’s income feeds overhead—salaries and mortgages?

The list above might seem cynical and reactionary. Its purpose is not to discount every dynamic of the modern Church as worldly and worthless. God has used churches and church people in amazing ways—and He will continue to do so. The purpose of this discussion is to allow the interested thinker some perspective to consider what cultural and historical foundations unconsciously drive our contemporary understanding of ministry and the Church’s interface with its world.

This is precisely why it has been so difficult historically in American evangelicalism to create vital, sustainable discipleship programs. There is no real need, since we implicitly know that all impactful ministries happen through professionals in sacred buildings on Sunday mornings. Our programmatic, building-centered approach actually militates against the focus, time and energy it takes to be missional and incarnational; without this the average member will not sense the dire need to be a disciple.

Finally, in our professionally-driven Christian sub-culture, just whom exactly is the disciple supposed to follow? Even in our relaxed, first-name-basis contemporary churches, there remains a huge and nearly unbridgeable psychological gap between clergy and laity. I simply can’t emulate a professional’s lifestyle; he does things and has powers and privileges I don’t, like getting seminary degrees, marryin’ and buryin’, baptizing and serving Communion.

So What?
The discussion above is also an attempt to demonstrate to missionally-minded leaders that there are serious and potentially stifling assumptions that North American Christians bring into the arena whenever we employ familiar forms of ministry. This is precisely why new forms are needed. It is not that new forms are intrinsically better or that traditional forms are evil. It is all about creating an atmosphere where community, impact, power and new imagination have the greatest chance of taking root.

Would a chapter of Overeaters Anonymous have an easier or a more difficult time reaching their objectives of they were to hold their meetings at a McDonalds or a Dairy Queen? When we are guided by clear objectives, sometimes an otherwise welcome venue becomes toxic.

Can an existing church turn the corner and become a dynamic, missional vehicle? Yes, or course. There will undoubtedly be more dynamic expressions of the Kingdom in many institutional/traditional churches (see how easy it is to mis-use that word?) than there ever will be through my own feeble efforts to pioneer a new/ancient movement. As one who has been part of the institutional Church as both a pastor and an overseas missionary, I have to wonder why we would spend our lives performing CPR when we could be out delivering babies.

What, then, is the best discipleship vehicle? It certainly isn’t through a paid professional, for all the reasons stated above. But take those same individuals, with theological acumen and leadership gifts, and place them in real-life situations. Intentionally under-employed former professionals working in local businesses, living in the same neighborhoods as the people they want to reach, acting as templates of hospitality, generosity and intentional relationality, wield great influence and inspire hope in others.

Spiritual gifts should be exercised. That includes those gifts of leadership within the Church. As gifted people learn to adopt a new set of assumptions, including one that restores the word “Church” to refer to God’s people rather than a building on a certain street corner, we will see a renaissance in Kingdom power across our communities. These new forms of Christian community will flourish as former professionals strip away old patterns and constantly challenge their co-laborers to disconnect from old paradigms of who does ministry in the Church and how it gets done.

So what about those verses in the New Testament about “don’t muzzle the ox” (like in 1 Timothy 5:18)? Is there a place for vocational clergy? Let’s address this with a couple clarifying comments. First, we are in the process of re-imagining the concept of Church. Now we see that when Paul addresses “the church in Corinth,” or Ephesus, or Rome, he probably is using that phrase to include every follower of Jesus in that geographical region. They didn’t all meet together on Sundays with a pastor. They were more likely a loose collection of house churches—tight-knit families of Jesus-lovers who needed the challenge of seeing a broader horizon. What they needed were regional overseers who could provide guidance and accountability in a very hostile environment. We have a continuing need for apostolic thinkers and prophetic teachers who can inspire and challenge God’s people. They just have to be far enough removed from us that we won’t dip back into the default assumption that they are the “ministers” and we are the passive audience. Even these verses, so beloved by those who make their living from others’ generosity, must be passed through the grid that challenges our default cultural assumptions.

There is a double irony in this new paradigm of Church in the West. The first is that this really isn’t new or novel; both the ancient Church in the first three centuries after the resurrection, and the modern Church in China, are shining examples of stunning health and growth through organic community in the absence of a professional priesthood. The second irony is that the current institutional Western clergy-led Church just might be led out of its rapid retreat into irrelevancy by…former clergy.

The missional/incarnational movement is more than a splinter faction of disgruntled spiritual anarchists. It is a fresh expression of ministry that has the potential to usher millions of people disinterested in “church” into the life of The Church. It’s worth every risk.