BLOG 1/9/18. THE ENIGMA (TO ME) OF CLERGY

Coming out of me, this may sound weird … but I have a lot of trouble with the whole notion of clergy, even though I have flown under this designation for over 60 years. I suppose the main reason is that, as it is popularly conceived, I simply don’t see it in scripture! In Christ’s church, his communities of the New Humanity, we all become a kingdom of priests, we are all called upon to “teach and admonish one another” (Colossians 3:16 ff.) and to be those in whom the Word of Christ is to dwell richly. There is no special class of God’s people who exist in some special spiritual category. All are to be being formed into the image of the Son of God (Romans 8:29 in loc).

Jesus, himself, did not come as a clergy, but as an itinerant peasant preacher, though with a divine calling unique to himself. He did not spend his time ‘hob-nobbing’ with the temple officials and with the priesthood. As a matter of fact, they were his worst critics. Jesus came into public in out of the way places, and when some got curious and ask leading questions, he invited them to come and be with him. So, for those many months he let his followers/disciples get close and know him, and to see his true humanity. Yes, he was always a mystery to them, but he also reproduced himself in them.

Paul, to prolific writer of most of the New Testament documents would write to the followers of Jesus in Philippi: What you have learned and received and heard and seen in me—practice these things, and the God peace will be with you (Philippians 4:9). Or, to all of the community of Christ’s followers in Corinth: Be imitators of me, as I am of Christ (I Corinthians 11:1). The word or concept of clergy never appears. Paul was something of lay missionary. He had a trade and could support himself. He could travel and make contacts and disciples in a multitude of places, but his only approbation was that the apostles in Jerusalem had declared him to be true to the mission of Christ.

But down the road (maybe with the reign of Constantine) there came the notion of a priestly class in the church who were set apart as clergy, who (maybe) dressed differently, and seemed to be other. I admit, that I was initially alerted to this aberration by the French theologian-sociologist Jacques Ellul in his book: The Subversion of Christianity. There he names the clergification of the church as a major subverting factor.

There were, of course, leaders (elders, or bishops/overseers) in all of the local communities of disciples, but they seemed to have been those who were the most mature and exemplary in their faith. The community chose those from among themselves who were the most trustworthy teachers and examples of God’s design (cf. I Peter 5:1-5).

But as things unfolded, and a clergy-class emerged, there also came the notion that an academic degree could constitute one equipped to be the leader of a congregation. So, I went to seminary, as all those who had a desire to become clergy did. There I took all kinds of good courses, and learned the demeanor of being clergy. We were all encouraged to take on a clergy persona. Then after gradation we tended to become something of a clergy-seminary sub-culture.

When got into the pastoral trenches, however, I learned that I only became authentic as I put away that persona, and proved myself as a skillful disciple-maker and engaged the folk on their turf and learned their lives, and became an authentic model. This took some doing. One of my mentors spoke of disciple-making as spending so much time with others that you reproduce yourself in them, and this would necessitate letting them get close. Not clergy, but disciple-makers, authentic New Humanity models formed by the word of Christ. To be continued …