Role Of Laity In The Church

Role and Importance of the Laity in the Church

The role and importance of the laity in the life of the church has been given renewed attention in recent years. Perhaps the reason for this is found in the fact that Christians are experiencing a new awareness of the nature of the church as a body which ministers to the needs of the world through allof its members, not just the pastor. The pastor may function as an inspirational leader and administrator, but he cannot on his own, or even with a staff, carry on the service which is the whole church's vocation. Practical necessity, as well as a re-evaluation of the theological and biblical foundations of the status and role of the laity have both played their part in this renewed emphasis. Roles of Clergy and Laity – an Introduction It should be observed that the SDA Church, founded largely by nonclergy, has traditionally emphasized the key role of the laity in both its teaching and practice. For example, celebration of the Communion Service, ordination as elders, chairmanship of church boards, preaching and leading in worship, have all been open to the laity (although mostly to male elders), as have training, encouragement and opportunities for faith-sharing, Bible teaching, group leadership and various other functions within and without the church. The church's view is epitomised by the following statements from Ellen G. White, one of the co-founders of the church:

The dissemination of the truth of God is not confined to a few ordained ministers.

The work of God in this earth can never be finished until the men and women comprising our church membership rally to the work, and unite their efforts with those of ministers and church officers.

Christian ministers . . .are not only to minister to the people, but to teach them to minister. . . . Every church member should be engaged in some line of service for the Master.

To everyone who becomes a partaker of His grace, the Lord appoints a work for others. . . .Upon the minister of the Word, the missionary nurse, the Christian physician, the individual Christian, whether he be merchant or farmer, professional man or mechanic--the responsibility rests upon all.

It is a fatal mistake to suppose that the work of soul-saving depends alone upon the ministry. . . .Those who stand as leaders in the church of God are to realize that the Saviour'scommission is given to all who believe in His name. God will send . . . many who have not been dedicated to the ministry by the laying on of hands. (White 1946, 68; White 1948a, 352; White 1905, 148-49; White 1905, 148; White 1911, 110)

While it is true that this high view of the calling and role of the laity, with all its implications, has not always been translated into reality, at least the laity of the SDA Church have not been "oppressed" in the manner of those spoken of by Anne Rowthorn in her Roman Catholic tradition: And they have believed the myths propagated by seventeen hundred years of clericalization: that laity go to church, but clergy are the Church; that professional ministers are more religious, more holy, and are the exclusive mediators between God and the people; that clergy alone celebrate the Eucharist, whereas laity only receive communion; that presbyters (i.e., priests, professionally ordained ministers) presiding at Eucharist represent God; that clergy have special access to God; that ascetics, monastics, and mystics are the models of Christian spirituality.

(Rowthorn 1986, 8)

Nevertheless, both the official clergy and the church administration, as well as the church members themselves, need to be constantly reminded of the true nature, function and role of the church and its membership. The philosophy behind this project paper can be summarized by the following words of Rowthorn: Only when laypersons come to the realization that they are now but a pale shadow of the full-bodied Christians they were meant to be, only whenthey learn what they have lost, only when they recover their voice and their free movement in Christ's body, only then will they grow to their full stature as human beings who live for the world for which Christ lived and died. Only then will the Church be truly the Church. (Ibid., 25)

In recent years, the danger of clergy-dominated governing committees at Division and General Conference levels of my denomination has been recognized and at least a better balance between clergy and laity has been achieved. There is, however, still room for improvement. Of course, lay people themselves have not always taken their calling to minister as seriously as they ought. Unfortunately, my own experience tells me that there is much truth in layman (delete this word)Richard Mouw's observation, at least in regard to Protestant churches such as my own: Indeed, they (lay people) have often avoided their calling in spite of noble efforts on the part of clergy and other church leaders to provide resources and encouragement for the worldly mission of the laity. In the final analysis, lay people must bear much of the blame for their own failures. And they must assume much of the responsibility for equipping themselves for ministry in the future. (Mouw 1980, 31)

This chapter will endeavor to set a theological foundation for a correct understanding of the nature and role of the church, its leadership and its members. Relationships between clergy and laity will be explored as will the role of the clergy and the type of leadership it needs to exercise to enable the laity to fulfiltheir biblical role. Further sections of this chapter will discuss the need for lay training and preparation for ministry within the church and in the world at large. The remainder of the paper will focus on outlining the practical implications of these theological and theoretical reflections. Theological and Biblical Reflections on the Church In the Scriptures the word church is a translation of the Greek "ekklesia", although the term "church" as a place of worship is actually derived from the word "kuriake" which means "belonging to the Lord" and came to be conceived as a place "belonging to the Lord" (Berkof 1939, 557). The word "ekklesia", which means "a calling out" was commonly used of any assembly summoned by the practice of calling people to meet. This usage was broadened in the New Testament. Note how it uses the term church: (1) believers assembled for worship in a specific place (1 Cor 11:18; 14:19,28); (2) believers living in a certain locality (1 Cor 16:1; Gal. 1:2; 1 Thess 2:14); (3) a group of believers in the home of an individual (1 Cor 16:19; Col 4:15; Phlm 2); ( 4) a group of congregations in a given geographic area (Acts 9:31); (5) the whole body of believers throughout the world (Matt. 16:18; 1 Cor10:32; 12:28; cf. Eph 4:11-16); (6) the whole faithful creation in heaven and on earth (Eph 1:20-22; cf. Phil 2:9-11). The Bible portrays the church as a divine institution, calling it "the church of God" (Acts 20:28; 1 Cor1:2). We can understand the nature of the Christian church by its Old Testament roots and the metaphors the New Testament uses in speaking of it. The Roots of the Christian Church. From the earliest times God-fearing families in the lineage of Adam, Noah,

Shem, and Abraham were the guardians of His truth. These households, in which the father functioned as the priest, could perhaps be seen as the church in miniature. To Abraham, God gave the promises through which this household of God gradually became a nation. Israel's mission was simply an extension of that given to Abraham: To be a blessing to all nations (Gen. 12:1-3), showing God's love for the world. When the nation of Israel was brought out of Egypt, it was called "the church [or "congregation," RSV, NIV] in the wilderness " (Acts 7:38 KJV). Its members were considered "a kingdom of priests and a holy nation "(Ex. 19:6 NIV). God called them out in order to call the nations in (Isa 56:7). He desired, through Israel, to create the largest "church" on earth - a church where representatives of all nations of the world would come to worship, learn about the true God, and return to their own people with the message of salvation. However, largely due to idolatry and nationalistic pride, Israel failed to fulfill its mission. The cross of Christ heralded the end of Israel's unique mission, while the resurrection and Pentecost inaugurated the Christian church and its mission: the world-wide proclamation of the gospel of salvationthrough Christ. The New Testament church, closely related to ancient Israel's community of faith through much of its beliefs and practices, was now to consist of both Jews and Gentiles who believed in Christ. This was to be the true Israel of faith (Gal 3: 26-29). Theologically, the church is now made up of Christians who are "fellow citizens with God's people and members of God's household, built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone" (Eph 2: 1920 NIV). It is the people or Israel of God (Eph 2:12 cf. 1 Pet 2:10) and the temple of God "in which God lives by his Spirit" (Eph 2: 21-22). Thus the church is the Israel of God in Christ Jesus, the true Israelite. Christ is the true reality and incarnate dwelling of God, and therefore it is in him rather than in its faltering and passing manifestation that the true reality

of the church is to be found. The cross reconciles all believers "unto God in one body" (Eph 2:16 KJV) and through the Holy Spirit they are "baptized into one body" (1 Cor12:13 KJV) - the church. Instead of a national people of God his people were to become a missionary church, existing to accomplish God's original plan which was restated in the divine mandate of its founder, Jesus Christ: "'Make disciples of all nations"' (Matt 28:19 NIV). New members are to be established in the faith and taught to use their God-given talents and gifts in mission. Although the Lord Jesus Christ is the church's foundation, the church did not come into being in any visible sense until Pentecost, when the Holy Spirit came upon the disciples in power and caused many to respond to the preaching about Jesus. Jesus had previously prepared them for this coming of the Holy Spirit by telling them to stay in Jerusalem until that empowering event took place (Acts 1:8). The coming of the Holy Spirit would empower the church to do Christ's bidding and to be effective in doing it. It would also be the means by which the risen Christ is with his church to comfort, teach and direct (John 14:16-18). It is obvious then, that the church is to be a spiritual reality in which the characteristics, power and endowments of the Sprit of Christ are seen.

Although Jesus said little about the church as such, the phrase 'the kingdom of God' is used about a hundred times in the Synoptic Gospels. It is therefore here that we should expect to find some underlying principles on which to develop a greater understanding of the doctrine of the church. Jesus taught that "the kingdom of God is at hand" (Mark 1:15) and spoke about entering the kingdom (Matt 5:20; 7:21; 18:3). He urged his disciples to pray for the coming of the kingdom (Matt 6:10) and to preach the kingdom (Matt: 9:35; 10:7) while he himself demonstrated the kingdom in power ( Matt: 12:15, 22,

28) and promised the future blessings of the kingdom ( Matt: 25:31, 34). It is God who 'gives' the kingdom (Luke 12: 32), who declares for whom it shall be (Matt 5: 3; Mark 10; 14), who compels people to enter and who refuses or rejects those who have spurned his offer of grace (Luke 14: 15-24). This coming of the reign of God is brought about by God alone. All people can do is receive it like a child (Mark 10: 15), seek it first in their lives (Matt 6: 33) and watch and be ready for the return of Christ in power and glory to reign eternally (Matt 24:44; 25: 1-13). Because the kingdom is God's own sovereign act, the church that desires the reign of God to extend over all the earth must "always live and move in complete dependence on God and in faithful obedience to his word" (Watson 1978, 53). This must include working after the model provided by Christ himself. For example, when Jesus broke Satan's rule by bringing to people the reign of God, there was an atmosphere of joy and celebration (Mark 2: 1-12; Luke 10: 17; Acts 3:1-10). Because of this fact, the message and image proclaimed by the church must, as David Watson points out, "be seen and heard in the first place as joyful good news. It must be positive in its message and ministry to the world" (Ibid. 56). Certainly, it has much to be positive about. Christians can experience the love of God which surpasses knowledge; they are heirs of the kingdom of God; they have the unsearchable riches of Christ and a peace which is beyond human understanding. If the church seeks first the kingdom of God it will experience constant and fresh infusion of the Spirit's power which will enable it to lovingly and joyfully serve the world with a fresh presentation of the unchanging message of the gospel which is relevant to each generation. Its structures and forms will be seen as temporary and flexible in order that the message of God's kingdom will not be obscured by cultural or time-conditioned traditions which do not connect in a relevant way to the current generation it is trying to reach. On the

other hand, it must be recognized that new structures, new services or various plans for church revitalization will all be in vain, if the Spirit's presence is not actively sought and indeed present at every step of the way. The reign of God is, however, also eschatological: it ultimately and finally comes at the end of time. Throughout the age of the church, it has made great progress and won many victories, but it is not yet the church triumphant. At Christ's return, the church triumphant will emerge. At that time He will be able to present "to Himself a glorious church," the faithful of all ages, the purchase of His blood, "not having spot or wrinkle . . . but . . . holy and without blemish" (Eph 5:27 KJV). At that time, the kingdom of God will be seen to reign over all theuniverse. In the meantime, the church must live between the "now" and the "not yet" – between the life of heaven and an existence that is very earthly. The body of Christ, the church, is "both present and future with a consummation occurring at the parousia" ( O'Brien 1987, 111).

With the coming of Jesus, "The kingdom of God has come upon you," said Jesus (Matt 12: 28); yet it is also future, when it will "come with power" (Mark 9: 1). With the death and resurrection of Jesus and the coming of the Holy Spirit in his fullness at Pentecost, the 'coming age' has been inaugurated even while the present age continues. One the one hand, the powers of the new age havealready broken in upon the church and believers can even now participate in the resurrection life of Christ. The church is revealed as "the assembly of the first-born" (Heb 12:23) in an encounter with God that is clearly heavenly and eschatological, yet Christians have already come to that heavenly assembly (Heb 12: 22-24). Believers have not only been blessed by the Father "in the heavenly realms with every spiritual blessing in Christ" (Eph 1: 3), but also God has already

raised them up with Christ and seated them with him in those same heavenly realms (Eph 2: 6). It is therefore a heavenly entity. On the other hand, it is an earthly reality. The church still exists in a world affected by sin and the sufferings and limitations of this present world are very real. The warfare between flesh and Spirit still continues until the consummation of all things at the return of Christ. In the meantime the shortcomings and weaknesses of the church and its members are evident. It is therefore important that the renewal and reshaping of the church under the guidance of the Holy Spirit be always viewed as a matter of great importance so that, as much as possible in the present age, God's glory can be seen in the church, and through the church to the world. Descriptions of the Church While it is true that worship and the glorification of God, together with Holy Spirit empowered evangelism are the primary functions of the church, it should be emphasized that Christ's mandate of carrying the gospel to the whole world involves also the nurturing of those who have already accepted the gospel. Neither worship, evangelism nor personal spiritual growth are intended to be experienced only on the individual level without the support and nurture of fellow believers. It is clear from a study of Scripture that God never intended us to be isolated Christians. Attempts at isolation indicate a wrong concept of the gospel, of worship and of the function of the church. Salvation is not meant to be just something which happens between God and one individual in isolation from other believers. Neither the Old nor the New Testament sees the individual as separate from the community of God's people. A person's salvation comes to him, from one perspective at least, as a member of a group. Believers are knit together in an invisible yet intimate relationship which the Apostle's Creed calls "the

communion of saints." Without the fellowship and communion of other Christians our communion with God could tend to make us self-centered in our worship and life. The apostle John informs us that "if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another. . . " (1 John 1:7 RSV). It should be noted that our fellowship is not only with God, but with our brethren. Fellowship with God exhibits and proves itself by fellowship with other Christians. The Church as a Community The Christian writings of the first century contain a variety of views regarding the meaning and practice of community. However, it is Paul's letters that contain the most detailed application of the concept. It is not that Paul was the first to formulate a Christian idea of community, nor that he treated the subject in a systematic way, that makes his contribution stand apart from all others. Rather, it is simply because in Paul's writings we find the most clearly developed and profound understanding of community in all the early Christian writings (Banks 1979, 14). A brief discussion of Paul's understanding of community follows. Although it is by no means a complete or exhaustive treatment, it is to be hoped that it will provide a background for a deeper understanding of the nature of the church and of the role and function of its members.

Some Metaphors for Community in Paul's Writings One of Paul's metaphors for the church is that of "building"--either an ordinary building or a temple, which Paul sees as a building "par excellence" (Rom 15:20; 1 Cor 3:10-14; 1 Cor14:12; Eph 2:20). Collectively, Christians make up the spiritual temple of God, in which resides the Spirit of God.

A more frequently used term is "ecclesia". Paul's understanding of this term is of a "gathering" both in a dynamic local sense and also in the sense of a heavenly reality to which all Christians belong (see Banks 1979, chap. 4 for a fuller discussion). Paul thus sees Christians in a common relationship with Christ, not only when they meet together but at all times, wherever they are. Yet, it is through gathering together that the community comes into being and is continually recreated. However, if we are to really understand Paul's idea of community, we must turn to other terms. It seems that in preference to the above terms, Paul uses the metaphor of a body, with Christ as the Head (Rom 12:4-5; 1 Cor12:12-31; Eph 1:22, 4:15-16; Col 1:18). This metaphor is the most dominant image used in the New Testament in connection with the Christian Church (Cole 1964, 11-16). As the body has many and varied organs, each designed to do a particular work and all performing in perfect harmony, so also the members of the church with their different gifts and functions, are to work harmoniously toward one supreme end. This is because the church is Christ's body, standing at His disposal, ruled by Him in all its members. Paul puts it this way: "For as in one body we have many members, and all the members do not have the same function, so we, though many are one body in Christ and individually membersone of another" (Rom 12:4-5 RSV). Alan Cole sees five meanings arising out of Paul's metaphor. These are: man's common dependence on Christ; joint partaking of His Spirit; interdependence on one another; unity in Christ; and responsibility for mutual service (Ibid.,26). This unity in diversity is clearly stated elsewhere by Paul: "For just as the body is one and has many members, and all the members of the body, though many, are one body, so it is with Christ" (1 Cor12:12 RSV). Thus, ideally, there is to be a harmonious functioning of the whole body.

This then is the meaning of Christian fellowship and community; namely, that believers are not simply an aggregation of individuals, but instead are members of one indivisible body with every member dependent on the others and all on Christ. Even though the 'body" metaphor is vital to Paul's thinking with regard to the Christian community, the inadequacy of this organic unity to describe all of the implications within the concept of "the church" leads Paul to use the language of human, and especially family, relationships. To these we shall now turn. The Church as a family. Christianity is family living. The fact that there are also other people present at church and included as its members is not simply incidental. Rather it is essential to the basic concepts of worship, church and to being members of the body of Christ. According to Robert Banks, "the comparison of the Christian community with a 'family' must be regarded as the most significant metaphorical usage of all" (Banks 1979, 63). It does appear true, that this image reveals the essence of Paul's thinking about community more than any other he uses. His use of the family metaphor is based on the relationship which exists between Christ, the believer, and God. Christians are members of a Divine family whose Father is God (Rom 8:14-17; Gal 4:6; Eph 2:19). This has implications for the life of the local communities, for members should see each other as members of a common family. Paul thus gives encouragement to "do good to all men, and especially to those who are of the household of faith" (Gal 6:10 RSV). Paul uses several terms in his writings concerning the church which come from family life. Apart from "oileioi" (household) which was mentioned above, he uses terms such as the following: 1.

"Oikonomos" (steward), who is one of the household personnel.(l Cor4:1-2, 9:17; Eph 3:2; Col 1:25).

2.

"Huperetes" (servant), illustrates the kind and spirit of behaviour that ought to prevail in the church (1 Cor 4:1).

3.

"Adelphoi" (brethren)', is Paul's favourite and most intimate term which

describes the relationship which exists between Christians.2 This personal relationship is also reflected in the way Paul refers to fellow workers and members as "our brother" (1 Cor 1:1, 16:12), "a beloved brother" (Eph 6:21; Col 4:7), "the faithful and beloved brother" (Col 4:9) and "my brother" (Phil 2:25). He not only refers to males but also to females whom he calls "our sister" (Rom 16:2; Phlm 2) and "his mother and mine" (Rom 16:13). Not only does Paul express himself thus, but he also expects members of the various churches to have similar loving relationships with each other. He prays that the Thessalonians will "increase and abound in love to one another . . . as we do to you" (1 Thess3:12 RSV). Those at Rome are to "love one another with brotherly affection" (Rom 12:10 RSV). These attitudes of patience, tolerance, humility, and perseverance should result in relationships of real depth as in a truly Christian and intimate family. It can be seen therefore that the metaphor of the family was a vital one to Paul's thinking concerning the Christian community. Closely related to this concept is that of the church as a "helping community". The Church as a helping community. It is strange indeed that one of the most vital expressions in the Bible concerning practical Christianity, is often overlooked in our search for propositional truth. The short and seemingly insignificant expression is "one another", a translation of the one Greek word "allèlòn". This word, in its different forms is found one hundred times in the New Testament and is variously translated as "one another" (76 times), "each other" (2), "themselves" (12), "one the other" (3) "yourselves" (3) "yourselves together" (1), "mutual" (1) and "together" (2). In the majority of these cases it is found in the imperative mood as a command, for example, to "have peace one with another" (Mk 9:50 KJV), "love one another" (John 13:34 KJV), "be devoted to one another in brotherly love" (Rom 12:10 NIV), "be likeminded one toward another" (Rom 15:5 KJV), "admonish one another" (Rom 15:14 KJV), "care one for

another" (1 Cor 12:25 RSV), "be servants of one another" (Gal 5:13 RSV), "bear one another's burdens" (Gal 6:2 NASB), "comfort one another" (1 Thess 4:18 RSV), "pray for one another" (James 5:16 NASB), "be subject one to another" (1 Pet 5:5 KJV) and "have fellowship with one another (1 John 1:7 NASB). The list could go one, but it is obvious that we have here a vital relationship word--one which touches almost every aspect of interpersonal relations within the fellowship of believers in Christ. The many "one another" passages in Scripture force us to conclude that the primary function of the church and of being included in its membership is not to fortify our minds with more "truth" or to strengthen our faith or to prod us to more witnessing or greater obedience --as important as all these things are. Rather it is in order that we might "have fellowship one with another" and have the place and opportunity for the true Christian graces to be expressed and nurtured in an atmosphere of brotherly love and concern. As Hendrick Kraemer put it: It is clear that the laity, as an organic part of the Church and its representative in the world, needs the help of the Church. Not as a haven of refuge, which is in most cases another form of escapism, of letting the world go to the devil. But as the nourishing and understanding mother, the community which by prayer, sacrament and ways of true fellowship (koinonia) sustains its members in the battle. (Kramer 1958, 175)

The church is therefore a helping community composed of members who are responsible for each other's welfare. Often discussion concerning the subject of the "priesthood of all believers" centers aroundthe right of individuals to form their own theological views and to be free from ecclesiastical control. However, the real importance of this term is that it relates to the privilege of service rather than of rights. As Hans Kung puts it: Each is responsible for his fellow-men, called to share in struggles and in his difficulties, called to bear his sins with him and to stand by him in everything. The priesthood of all believers is a fellowship in which each Christian, instead of living for himself, lives before God, for others and is in turn supported by others.

(Kung 1971, 381)

The one Christian grace which will enable this ideal of a helping, fellowshipping community to become a reality, is love. Only when true love is exercised will the church become the caring, concerned community that the "one another" passages indicate it should be. It is significant that in Scripture, the words "one another" are linked with the command to love, more than with any other command or advice. For example, John says "Beloved, if God so loved us, we ought also to love one another" (1 John 4:11 RSV). The actual expression of love is thus a concreteevidence that we have experienced God's redemptive grace in Christ. Jesus himself said, "As I have loved you, so you must love one another" (John 13:34 NIV). The Church, the family of God, will always stand in need of a gospel which is proclaimed, not only in words, but also in concrete acts of love to one another within the caring, family fellowship of the community. The Church as a Therapeutic Community. It is a marvel of God's grace that Jesus Christ has condescended to live in and through the Church, thereby continuing His ministry and work for mankind. The Church is the therapeutic agency which God desires to use to reveal His love and healing power to the world. He has turned to redeemed humanity to perpetuate the Incarnationalrevelation horizontally out into history. In a world filled with confusion, tension, stress and loneliness, people (including Christians) are in desperate need of the love of God and the peace, strength and healing which such knowledge and acceptance brings. Counselors have long recognized the need to show their counselees acceptance and support in order to facilitate understanding, growth and the solving of personal problems. When members of the Christian community experience this acceptance and support, they are better prepared to be able to minister to others, both within the church and out in the wider community. The Place of Public Worship and Church Attendance

in Building the Community

Public worship is the center of the whole life of the community. It is only as the community has its distinct center in its worship that it can and will stand out clearly in the world. In the worship service there takes place that which does not take place anywhere else.1 RayAnderson quotes Karl Barth as stating that in divine service the community "exchanges its working clothes for its festal attire. It is now an event as community" (Anderson 1979, 333). In the worship service, the community truly comes into visible _______________________

1

For material on a theology of worship and its importance in the life of the believer and the

church community, see appendix ? existence. Jesus said that "where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them" (Matt 18:20 KJV). This saying has unmistakable reference to the gathering (synagogue) of the community in public worship. The human response to the impulsion of the Word of God calls for something public. The unity of knowledge, faith, love, and hope in the One who is the object of their hope, calls for the unity of confession in community worship. Thus, an important way in which the lordship of Jesus Christ in His community takes place,is in divine worship. When people truly worship they will recognize that they are those who are gathered by Him as their one Lord, and will regard and receive one another as brothers. Christians gather also that they may be united, strengthened, and preserved to live in a hostile world. It is a time to pray with one another. The Lord's Prayer demands that it should find its true and proper form in the prayer of the assembled community; in the

united calling upon God as "Our Father". This is why Christian prayer demands that it should be the prayer of the assembled community as well as the prayer of individuals. We have already seen that the church is likened in Scripture to a body which

consistsof members who know, love, pray for, encourage, exhort, teach, and minister to

eachother. Thus when Christians attempt to live and grow on theirown, they are out of God's will. He has placed each one in the body and expects them to grow there; not forsaking or ignoring the other members. The writer to the Hebrews makes it clear: "And let us consider one another to provoke unto love and to good works: not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is; but exhorting one another: and somuch the more as ye see the day approaching" (Heb 10:24-25 KJV). It is extremely important to the health of the Christian community, that members sense their worth as a participating member of the family of God and be encouraged to join regularly in community worship and service. Seeing the church as a family and as a helping, therapeutic, worshipping community will help us to be aware of the responsibility we have for each other's welfare, as well as challenge and prepare us for ministry in the world at large. The Place of Preaching in Building the Church Few Christians should dispute the fact that the preached word should be restored to its rightful place of importance in the redemptive mission of the Church. Especially should this fact be understood by those who believe that "this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all theworld for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come" (Matt 24:14 KJV). Preaching can motivate the conversion of words, concepts, and ideas into action. Empowered by the Holy Spirit, preaching subdues hearts, produces

conviction, brings repentance, leads to reconciliation, and transforms lives. Preaching is a gift of the Holy Spirit, and through it God seeks to say something to us about Himself and His character. As Ellen White observed: We are never to forget that Christ teaches through His servants. There may be conversions without the instrumentality of a sermon. Where persons are so situated that they are deprived of every means of grace, they are wrought upon by the Spirit of God and convinced of the truth through reading the word; but God's appointed means of saving souls is through 'the foolishness of preaching. ( White 1948b, 300) However not everyone agrees that biblical preaching is an urgent need of the church. According to Haddon W. Robinson, "The word is out in some circles that preaching should be abandoned. The moving finger has passed it by and now points to other methodsand ministries that are more "effective" and in tune with the times" (Robinson 1980, 15). One possible reason for this change in attitude is that no longer is the preacher regarded as the intellectual or even the spiritual leader in the community. The image of the preacher has changed. D. Stuart Briscoe observes that "In an environment where anti-authority and pro-individuality attitudes prevail, it is not difficult to understand why preachers and preaching are not consensus favorites" (Briscoe 1994, 10).

Another probable reason for less favorable image of preaching in some circles, is that it takes place today in an overcommunicatedsociety. "Mass media bombard us with a hundred thousand 'messages' a day. Television and radio feature pitchmen delivering a 'word from the sponsor' with all the sincerity of an evangelist. Within that context the preacher may sound like another huckster . . . " (Robinson, 16). Undoubtedly, modern techniques can enhance communication, but on the other hand they can substitute for the message. Unfortunately, even the renewed emphasis on small-groups and worship

renewal can sometimes have a negative side effect in lessening the appeal of biblical preaching. As Briscoe observes: Since the development of small groups within churches {which I encourage) there has been, at best, a healthy discovery and implementation of scriptural truth in the lives of the participants, along with many other benefits. But at worst these groups have been known to degenerate into meetings for the pooling of ignorance, the endless repetition of real or imaginary ills, and an increasing move away from any serious approach to the understanding and application of scriptural truth. In the same way, where there has been in some circles a new awareness of worship{which I applaud), the result has been a disproportionate emphasis on singing and 'sharing' at the expense of teaching from the Word by able gifted teachers (Briscoe, 10). As James Earle Massey reminds us, "Our business is more than facilitating a group interaction; it is to lead people to invest themselves in God's grace and involve themselves in God's will" (Massey 1998, 64). While there is no denying the effectiveness of these things as means of learning, we should not forget the unique place of preaching in God's scheme of things and in the life of the church. The reason for this can be seen in that, "preaching assumes the uniqueness of the authoritative Word; the unique presence of the Holy Spirit as the Word is preached; the unique anointing and empowering of the preacher by the Spirit; and the unique activity of that same Spirit in the application of his inspired Word to the hearts of those who are receptive" (Briscoe, 11).

It should be evident that even though there are many ways of communicating the gospel, it cannot be said that preaching is an ineffective way of doing it. "There is no shortage of modern-day preachers who testify to the remarkable work of grace through the preaching of the Word, which is evidenced in changed lives" (Ibid.,12). Consequently, "In spite of the 'badmouthing' of preaching and preachers, no one who takes the Bible seriously dare count preaching out" (Robinson , 17). Despite the fact that Paul was a great and inspired writer, when he wrote to the congregation in Rome, he confessed, "I long

to see you, that I may impart to you some spiritual gift to strengthen you, that is, that we may be mutually encouraged by each other's faith, both yours and mine" (Rom1:11-12 RSV). Paul realized that even the reading of an inspired letter would not substitute for face-to-face contact. He said, "I am eager to preach the gospel to you also who are in Rome" (Rom l:15RSV). It seems that there is a power which comes through the preached word that cannot be replaced by even the written word. All of this explains why Paul encouraged his young associate Timothy to "preach the word" (II Tim 4:2). He also wrote that "Until I come, devote yourselfto the public reading of Scripture, to preaching and to teaching. Do not neglect your gift . . ." (1 Tim 4:13-14 NIV). When recounting the spiritual history of the Thessalonians who had "turned to God from idols, to serve a living and true God, and to wait for his Son from heaven" (I Thess 1:9-10 RSV), Paul explained that the change had come because "when you received the word of God which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men but as what it actually is, the word of God, which is at work in you believers" (1 Thess2: 13 RSV). To Paul, preaching was an event where God Himself spoke through the personality and message of a preacher to confront men and women and bring them to Himself. Other New Testament writers also saw preaching as an event through which God works to bring about positive and radical changes in the hearers. Peter, for example, reminded his readers that they had been "born anew, not of perishable seed but of imperishable, through the living and abiding word of God" (I Pet 1:23 RS\'). Peter went on to explain that "that word is the good news which was preached to you" (1:25). It was through preaching God had redeemed them. Clear biblical preaching is an event which "penetrates to the heart of man's profound dilemma (guilt and meaninglessness) and speaks to his loneliness, persuades persons to repent, encourages them to trust God, and gives them identity" (Fisher 1966, 17).

As Emil Brunner has rightly explained, "Where there is true preaching, where, in the obedience of faith to the command of the Lord and in the authority of His spirit the Word is proclaimed, there, in spite of all appearances to the contrary, the most important thing that ever happens upon this earth takes place" (Brunner 1946, 142). In the same vein of thought, Geoffrey Wainwright observes that "Christian preaching should be both intelligible andpertinent to its present audience; these two qualities are demanded by the claim that the Christian message is indeed a 'revelation', and a revelation of universal importance" ( Wainwright 1980, 178). As Paul said, " We are ambassadors for Christ, God making his appeal through us" ( 2 Cor 5:20 RSV). Together with biblical teaching, preaching can also motivate and equip church members to exercise Christ's ministry in the world. Through the preaching of the Scriptures, God encounters men and women to bring them to salvation and to richness of Christian character, which in turn should lead to a life of effective service. Paul reminded Timothy that the Scriptures were given to be applied. "All scripture is inspired by God," he wrote, "and is useful for teaching the faith and correcting error, for resetting the direction of a man's life and training him in good living. The scriptures are the comprehensive equipment of the man of God, and fit him fully for all branches of his work" (II Tim 3:16-17 Phillips). Although this can take place outside of the context of a preaching service, yet, as has been observed earlier, there is something special and powerful that can happen in the preaching event. In conclusion, it could be said that the spoken word is perhaps still the most powerful instrument for affecting human lives. Just as the Reformation was born of great preaching, every important revival or rebirth of faith has been associated with a re-emphasis on the centrality of preaching. Effective communication through preaching can positively influence the thinking and lives of the hearers and lead to a commitment to the worship and

service of God in and through His church and to the achievement of its goals - including service to the wider community. Thus, effective biblical preaching can be a key factor in the revitalizing, motivating and mobilizing of a church and in the clarifying of its goals and objectives.

Theological Reflections on the Role of the Laity It is the contention of this paper that the recognition of the role of the laity as ministers within and without the Church and the subsequent empowering for ministry,is not only a biblical truth but is of utmost importance to the future health and growth of the Church. I would agree with Richard Mouw who says: Indeed, I am tempted at times to argue that the question of the nature and role of the laity is the fundamental question to be faced by the Church today, and that other important issues are, in fact, variations on this issue. (Mouw 1980, 18) While the major thrust of this chapter is the importance of the role of each individual church member in the work and ministry of the church, we cannot overlook the fact that there was still an important place for church office and leadership. To this we shall now turn our attention. Offices in the New Testament Church Of course, Christ is the head of the church. Since His victory over Satan on the cross, Christ has been given "all authority in heaven and on earth" (Matt 28:18 NIV). God has put "all things under His feet, and gave Him to be head over all things to the church" (Eph l:22KJV; cf. Phil 2:10,11). He is therefore "Lord of lords and King of kings" (Rev 17:14 KJV). Christ also is the head of the church because the church is His body (Eph. 1:23; Col l:18). Though Christ guides His church through the Holy Spirit, the Word of God is

the sole standard by which the church operates. All its members are to obey that Word and all human traditions, customs, and cultural practices are subject to the authority of the Scriptures (2 Tim. 3:15-17). Christ exercises His authority through His church and its specially appointed servants, but He never transfers His power. No one has any independent authority apart from Christ and His word. However, after Jesus' ascension the earthly leadership of the church rested in the hands of the apostles. Their first organizational act, in counsel with the other believers, was to elect another apostle to take Judas' place (Acts 1:15-26). As the church grew, the apostles realized the impossibility of both preaching the gospel and caring for the church's temporal affairs. So they turned the church's practical business over to seven men whom the church appointed. Though the church distinguished between the "'ministry of the word"' and "'serving tables"' (Acts 6:1-4 KJV), it made no attempt to separate clergy from laity in discharging the mission of the church. In fact, two of the seven, Stephen and Philip, were noted for their effective preaching and evangelism (Acts 7 and 8). Eventually, the church's expansion into Asia and Europe called for greater organization. With the establishment of numerous new churches, elders were ordained "in every church" to ensure stable leadership (Acts 14: 23). The New Testament mentions two church offices - those of the elder and the deacon. The importance of these offices is underscored by the high moral and spiritual requirements set for those who would fill them ( 1Tim 3:1-7; Titus 1:5-9). The church recognized the sacredness of the calling to leadership through ordination, the laying on of hands (Acts 6:6; 13:2,3; 1 Tim. 4:14; 5:22). Although the office of deacon involved both temporal and spiritual matters, the elders, (presbuteros) or bishops (episkopos) were the most important officers of the church in terms of spiritual leadership and authority. The term "elder" means "older one",

implying dignity and respect. This position was similar to that of the one who had supervision of the synagogue. The term "bishop" means "overseer." Paul used these terms interchangeably, equating elders with overseers or bishops (Acts 20:17,28; Titus 1:5,7). Those who held this position supervised the newly formed churches. Since the apostles also called themselves elders (1 Pet 5:1; 2 John 1; 3 John 1), it is apparent that there were both local elders and itinerant elders, or elders at large. But both kinds of elder functioned as shepherds of the congregations. Because of the importance of the office Paul charged, "Do not lay hands on anyone too hastily" (1 Tim 5:22 NASB). An elder is first and foremost a spiritual leader. He is chosen "to shepherd the church of God" (Acts 20:28 NASB). His responsibilities include supporting weak members (Acts 20:35), admonishing the wayward (1 Thess5:12), and being alert for any teachings that would create divisions (Acts 20:29-31). Elders must model the Christian lifestyle (Heb 13:7; 1 Pet 5:3) and set examples of liberality (Acts 20:35). Paul encourages believers to respect their leaders and "to esteem them very highly in love because of their work" (1 Thess5:13 NASB). "Let the elders who rule well," he said, "be counted worthy of double honor, especially they who labor in the word and doctrine" (1 Tim 5:17 KJV). Other Scriptures also make clear the need to respect church leadership: "Obey your leaders and submit to them, for they are keeping watch over your souls, as men who will have to give account" (Heb 13:17 RSV; cf. 1 Pet 5:5). What has just been said concerning the role and authority associated with the offices of the church, should in no way detract from the high view concerning the nature and role of the laity which is being espoused in this paper. The distinction between full-time clergy or chosen office bearers of the church on the one hand, and the laity on the other, should always emphasize function rather than status or superior position. The Nature and Role of the Laity

The word “layman” is used in various ways but usually defined in terms of a contrast. One definition puts the contrast in terms of the person’s employment outside the church: “By ‘laity’ we mean, … the vast body of church members who spend their lives in what is called a secular occupation, which absorbs the major part of their time” (World Council of Churches 1954, 1). Another definition expresses the contrast in terms of the person's employment inside the church: The term ‘layman’ is here used to distinguish the role of the other church members from the minister’s role as a professional one and not to imply that there is any distinction between them as to basic Christian vocation. . . . The pastor is the employed minister of the church, giving his full time to the church; whereas, the layman is a volunteer minister of Jesus Christ devoting a part of his time to the ministry of the church in performing definitely assigned roles. (Segler 1960, 75) It is true that some kind of biblical precedent for this can be found. The biblical term "ho Laos" (the laity) is used of the people of Israel as distinguished from their rulers and priests in such passages as Matt 26:5 and Acts 5:26. Especially is it used to distinguish them from the high priest and the priests in Heb 5:3; 7:5; 7:27. It is used similarly in the Old Testament, in Exod 19:24; 2 Chron24:10. Also, "ho Laos is frequently used in Greek liturgies to denote the congregation as distinguished from the officiating priest” (Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics, Vol. 8, 766). Later biblical scholarship has however focussed on the fact that the major contrast is between the covenanted people of God and those who are not the people of God. Hendrick Kraemer points out: The word ‘lay’ goes back to the Greek word laikos . . . It means originally: belonging to the laos; that is the chosen people of God, both in the Old and the NT. In this light all members of the church are laikoi. (Kramer 1958, 49) Therefore, if laos refers to the whole people of God in its root meaning, then ministers are laymen also. As Richards puts it so well:

The relationship with God expressed in the phrase “His people” is inclusive: it refers to the whole people, not just a special class or group of believers. In Israel, prophet, priest and common man . . . all found their identity in that relationship with the Lord. In the church, too, we share an identity . . . There is no division by class or status among the people of God. The whole community of faith shares a single calling and identity. (Richards 1981, 144-45) The structure of the New Testament Church was formed for the equipping of the saints (all Christians) for the work of ministry (Eph 4:12). Also, God has reconciled us to Himself by the cross and has committed to us the ministry of reconciliation (2 Cor5:15-20). If reconciliation is for all, then clearly the ministry is also for all members. As Kraemer puts it: “All members . . . have in principle the same calling, responsibility and dignity, have their part in the apostolic and ministerial nature and calling of the church” (Ibid., 160). It is clear that the New Testament teaches that all Christians are to be ministers. A major and repeated emphasis is the full participation of each one of the "laos.” According to Hebrews, every believer has access to God under the New Covenant (Heb 4:16; 19:10) and each is called in Christ to servanthood. As Stevens points out: “The supported, remunerated Christian worker is not more called to ministry than is the tentmaker or the Christian professional. They are all called" (Stevens 1985, 85). The fact that the early church accepted and practiced this view is clearly shown from a reading of the book of Acts and the evidence of church history. George Williams, in his study of the role of the lay person in the early Christian church, shows that the faith was spread most effectively in the dispersion of life in the workplace. He quotes the pagan Celcius in the second century who admitted that it was the “wool workers, cobblers, laundry workers and the most illiterate and bucolic yokels” who spread the gospel, even more than the bishops, apologists and theologians (Williams 1963, 52). Michael Green, in his monumental study of evangelism in the early church, supports this

view: All of this makes it abundantly clear that in contrast to the present day, when Christianity is … dispensed by a professional clergy… in the early days the faith was spontaneously spread by informal evangelists, and had its greatest appeal among the working classes. (Green 1970, 210-11) Another aspect of scriptural teaching which supports the concepts we have been stating, is that of the priesthood of all believers. Priesthood language comes from both the Old and New Testaments. “You shall for me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation” (Exod 19:6 NIV )and “And you will be called priests of the Lord, you will be named ministers of our God” (Isa 61:6 NIV). These passages suggest that the whole people ispriestly, as do those in the New Testament: “You are a chosen race, a royal priesthood” (1 Pet 2:9 NASB). In the final book of the New Testament it is said that Christ “has made us to be a kingdom and priests to serve his God and Father” (Rev 1:6 NIV) and that he “has made them to be a kingdom and priests to our God” (Rev 5:10 NASB). In Christ the partition between the sacred and the secular has, once and for all time, been eliminated, so that now we have a holy people of God whose every member participates in the priesthood of Christ. This doctrine was a key tenet of the beliefs of Martin Luther who stated: "A cobbler, a smith, a farmer, each has the work and office of his trade, and yet they are all alike consecrated priests and bishops . . . " (Luther 1925, 66). Although Christians, as individuals, are never said to be priests, yet as Anne Rowthornconcludes: “So priesthood belongs to the church - to all members of the church, lay and ordained alike . . . " (Ibid., 17). The implication of this NT concept is clearly that not only do all Christians have direct access to God, but that they all have a ministry to their fellow man. As Rex Edwards says: At the very least the doctrine anticipates the full participation of all Christians in the evangelistic action of the church. No pastor can fulfill the ministry God gave to each believer. One of the major attacks of the Reformation was centered at the point of recapturing the ministry of the laity. Yet, ironically, this was one of the areas where a

sufficiently radical break was not made by the Reformers and those who followed them. It is here that the modern church can make a significant and unique contribution, if, indeed we are sufficiently daring. (Edwards 1979, 95) Elton Truebloodspeaks in a similar vein when he points out that one of the central characteristics of the first Reformation was in opening the Bible to the “ordinary Christian” and that this seems to have had greater impact than the teaching about the priesthood of all believers. He says: Now, after more than three centuries, we can, if we will, change gears again. Our opportunity for a big step lies in opening the ministry to the ordinary Christian in much the same manner that our ancestors opened Bible reading to the ordinary Christian. To do this means, in one sense, the inauguration of a new Reformation while in another it means the logical completion of the earlier reformation in which the implications of the position taken were neither fullyunderstood nor loyally followed. (Trueblood 1952, 32) In summary, it would see clear that an understanding of the Bible's teaching concerning the priesthood of all believers and its implication for the church's ministry, has never been fully lost nor has it ever been fully received. Baptism and Ordination to Ministry At the end of His ministry Christ commanded His disciples: " Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you" (Matt 28: 18-20 NASB). Here Christ makes it clear that He required baptism (where physically possible) of all who wished to become part of His church. Their baptism would demonstrate that they had entered into a personal relationship with Christ and were committed to living in harmony with the principles of His kingdom of grace Just as Jesus' water baptism represented a prophetic enactment of His suffering, death, and burial (Mark 10:38; Luke 12:50) and His emergence from the water

spoke of His subsequent resurrection (Rom 6:3-5), so in baptism believers enter into the passion experience of our Lord. Paul said, "Don't you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death? We were therefore buried with Him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead . . . we too may live a new life" (Rom 6:3, 4 NIV). The intimacy of the believer's relationship with Christ is revealed through expressions like "baptized into Christ Jesus" and "buried with Him through baptism." As J. K. Howard noted, "In the symbolic act of baptism the believer enters into the death of Christ, and in a real sense that death be comes his death; and he enters into the resurrection of Christ, and that resurrection becomes his resurrection" (Howard 1970, 69). Therefore, to the believer baptism is both a death to sin and a resurrection to new life. In baptism believers "have become united with Him in the likeness of His [Christ's] death" (Rom 6:5 NASB) and "crucified with Christ" (Gal 2:20). This means that "our old man was crucified with Him, that the old body of sin might be done away with, that we should no longer be slaves of sin. For he who has died has been freed from sin" (Rom 6:6-8 NKJV). We are dead to sin and confirm that the "old things have passed away" (2 Cor5:17 KJV), our lives being hid with Christ in God. In addition, Christ's resurrection power goes to work in our lives. It enables us to walk in newness of life (Rom. 6:4)dead now to sin, "but alive to God in Christ Jesus our Lord" (Rom 6:11 NKJV). God provides a new spiritual life through the energizing power of the Holy Spirit, giving us new values, aspirations, and desires that focus on a commitment to Jesus Christ. We are new disciples of our Lord and Saviour, and baptism is the sign of our discipleship. Just as in Old Testament times circumcision marked the covenantal relationship between God and Abraham (Gen. 17:1-7) and later, with Israel, so Christ's death ratified the new covenant. People entered this covenant through spiritual circumcision - a

response of faith to Jesus' atoning death. Baptism, the sign of a saving relationship with Jesus, represents this spiritual circumcision. "In Him you were also circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the sins of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, buried with Him in baptism, in which you also were raised with Him through faith in the working of God who raised Him from the dead" (Col. 2:11, 12 NKJV). With the 'body of flesh' removed through the spiritual circumcision performed by Jesus, the baptized person now 'puts on Christ' and enters into the covenant relationship with Him. Baptism should also be seen as a symbol entrance into the church and of consecration to Christ's service. At His baptism Jesus received a special outpouring of the Holy Spirit signifying His anointing or dedication to the mission His Father had assigned Him (Matt 3:13-17; Acts 10:38). Similarly, when a person is baptized in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, that person is dedicated, consecrated, and united with the three great powers of heaven and to the spreading of the gospel. Since baptismdoes this, it serves also as the door to the church. Through baptism new disciples are added to Christ's body the church (Acts 2: 41, 47; 1 Cor 12:13). As noted above, through His baptism Christ was initiated into His ministry. It indicated consecration to His vocation as the Messiah. In a similar manner, through the Christian’s baptism, the Christian is incorporated into the body of Christ (Gal 3:27; Rom 6:2-3) and ordained for participation in His ministry. The outpouring of the Spirit at Pentecost is the counterpart to what happened at Christ’s baptism and the same Spirit who empowered Him for His Messianic ministry now empowers His Church and gives gifts of ministry to every believer (Romans 12; 1 Corinthians 12; Ephesians 4). Baptism was described in the early Church as “the service of ordination to the Church’s basic order of ministry” (Eastman 1982, 61). According to this understanding of baptism then, to be baptized means to be

called into the life of a minister/servant (2 Cor5:15; Rom 6:4, 13, 18; Eph 4:12). As Ellen White stated: “After the believing soul has received the ordinance of baptism, he is to bear in mind that he is dedicated to God, to Christ, and to the Holy Spirit” (White 1946b, 315). The place of the baptized is wherever in the world there is room for service. The baptized, like his Lord, is a servant. The phrase “baptism as ordination” does not appear in Scripture, but it is a powerful affirmation of the mission of the whole people of God. It implies that baptism is the fundamental call to Christian priesthood and ministry. As Rex Edwards says: It takes seriously both the ministry of people to each other within their own community of faith as well as their ministry of service to the world. . . . Only the recovery of the full meaning of baptism can save from irrelevance our talk about the ministry. (Edwards 1983, 6) If this is so, then especially at the local church level, baptism as an ordination to ministry needs to be celebrated as much as is usually the case with clergy ordination.

In conclusion, I must concur with Richards who states: We can only conclude that as each one of the laosis a full participant in the identity that underlies all ministry, each part of the body of Christ in our local congregations must be guided to live out its identity in ministry! Any biblical approach to ministry in the church of Jesus Christ must be rooted in the conviction that we are a ministering people . . . each and every one.” (Ibid., 149) .

Practical Implications for the Relationship Between Clergy and Laity It should be stated at the outset that the problem of clergy domination that has displayed itself over the centuries cannot simply be blamed on any specific persons or events. It is a problem which took centuries to develop and will obviously not disappear overnight, despite the large amount of corrective writing and teaching which we have seen in recent years.

The excessive, unscriptural division between clergy and laity has unfortunately had a detrimental effect on both sides. The power and position of the clergy has often fostered a passive and submissive laity. Instead of recognizing and supporting laity as ministers in their own right it has too often turned laypersons into simply the recipients of professional ministry. The clergy themselves had also been affected negatively by this devaluation of lay ministry. The tendency has been for them to become isolated and withdrawn into themselves and to take on more work and responsibilities than they should. This has resulted in their becoming over-extended and open to unreasonable expectations of church members while sometimes neglecting their own spiritual and family needs. Clergy burnout is a common result of this imbalance. Rowthorn rightly observes:

No major denomination is without its share of clergy who at midlife and mid career have become bitter, broken, disillusioned, angry. It is the legacy of the age-old split between clergy and laypersons and the separation of professional ministers from the whole ministerial body that is the Church. (Ibid., 10)

What then should be the relationship between the clergy and the laity and what specific roles does thepaid clergy play? In the view of this writer, the role of the clergy is largely that of enabler, facilitator, trainer, motivator and supporter of the laity. The style of leadership which will best enable the clergy to successfully carry out this role will be discussed at length later in the chapter. Clergy are to provide vision and encouragement as well as ensure that the various ministries of the community, both inside and outside the church, are resourced and carried out. They are not to simply enlist the laity as their assistants but rather are to liberate each member for his or her own ministry. As well as this, they have the special responsibility in the community to both preserve and interpret the faith

as relevant in changing circumstances. As M.B. Handspicker puts it: Our 'bishops' have the task of overseeing the work of the 'kingdom of priests' and serving the holy priesthood as 'theologians in residence,' working and teaching in and for the laosof God. When this is understood, other tasks of the professional clergy can be seen in proper perspective. Administration, counseling, preaching are all ways they further their fundamental task of teaching the faith and its implications for personal and corporate life in today’s changing world. (Handspicker 1984, 107)

Clergy as Equippers Perhaps one of the most important functions of the clergy and one that is often neglected is to be a trainer and equipper of others for ministries suited to their spiritual gifts. The Seventh-day Adventist Church has long had counsel in this regard as is seen in the following statements from the writings of Ellen G.White:

Christian ministers have a broader work than many have recognized. They are not only to minister to the people, but to teach them to minister . . . Every church member should be engaged in some line of service for the Master. ...

. . . every church should be a training school for Christian workers.

Christ intends that His ministers shall be educators of the church in gospel work. (White 1905, 148-49; Ibid., 149; White 1948, 19; White 1898, 825)

The Church’s job and therefore that of its clergy, is to be in the business of training ministers. This is one of its primaryfunctions. Teaching/equipping ought to be placed right at the heart of clerical identity. As R. Paul Stevens points out: “Church leadership is called primarily to an equipping ministry . . . The saints are to be equipped for their own ministry” (Ibid., 34).

If this true, then what kind of training is needed and how should it be carried out? To this we shall now turn.

The Training of the Laity

One key thing which holds back many of the laity from exercising their ministry is a lack of training in the knowledge and skills needed for the task. Firstly, they need opportunities for growing theologically and spiritually in the same way in which they continually develop their secular expertise and skills. As Robert Benne states: "In an age of exploding knowledge, it is a crucial need of the Church to educate its clergy and laity well. The laity’s advance in Christian understanding should be at least commensurate with their secular learning and training” (Ibid., 198).

It must be remembered that equipping the laos is much more than giving them skills for teaching, visitation, small group leadership and community service of various kinds. R. Paul Stevens is probably correct when he says this is ". . . one of the myths about equipping that must be debunked. Equipping is more concerned with character formation than skills or information” (Ibid., 22). This situation can be at least partly addressed in the preaching, worship and fellowship of the church services as well as in small groups and personal contact. In the work of training and equipping the laity, there is need of a balance between these two areas: character development and spiritual formation on the one hand and knowledge and practical skills on the other. In the latter area there is also a need to provide training for ministry, both within the institutional church as well as outside of it.

It is important that suitably gifted lay people be trained, acknowledge and commissioned for various roles and tasks within the church. These include teaching, leading in worship, preaching, leadership of committees and small groups, administration and caring skills, to name a few. Unfortunately, however, the training given to laity has too often focussed almost entirely on preparation for service within the church to the neglect of training for service out in the world. Rowthorn reflects on one of the attitudes which is behind at least some of this imbalance when she says: There is an arrogance among Christians that equates God’s activity with service in the institutional Church and that measures religious commitment exclusively by institutional service. The more committees Church people belong to or chair, the more important the institutional decisions they make, the more they are at the service of the ordained ministers of the Church, the more lessons they read at public worship, the more prayers they recite - the better the Christians they are considered to be . . . Christian service is equated with service within the institutional structures of the Church. (Ibid., 115) Laity education must deal with questions about what the Christian faith means for daily Christian involvement in the world. Since the average layperson spends the largest part of their time working inside or outside the home, their ‘church time’ must be only a small part of their potential life for God. Therefore, unless the laity are equipped to live all of life in and out of the workplace for God, then a tragic and wasteful bifurcation of their lives will occur. Fortunately, many branches of the Church are beginning to address this problem. Members are being encouraged to discover that ministry is related to their workday roles, which are to be seen as vocations rather than just "jobs." I believe however, that in my own denomination still more attention needs to be given to training for this kind of workplace ministry. If the Church took the training and equipping of these two types of laity (those whose main focus is their ministry in the workplace and those who see their weekday work as providing the means to support them in their ministry within the local church) as seriously

as we have taken the training of the professional clergy, the Church would experience a revolution and Christ’s work on earth would be greatly advanced.

Methods & Content of Training Once people have discovered their spiritual gift area, then equipping for that particular area of ministry is needed. In order to provide guidance and support for the member’s ministry area, training will often include the theological principles on which the ministry must be based, training in skills and methods and also counseling and supervision as the ministry is carried out. Leaders need to ensure that a context is provided in which the growth process is natural and healthy. Often the importance of providing such a context is overlooked. As Richards points out: “We attempt to force individuals into ministry in ways that shortcut the process, burn them out, and turn them off as ministering persons” (Ibid., 241). Examples of the “shortcut” approach to launching people into ministry are all too familiar to most honest clergy. In the rush to get people involved, too often they have been given a task to do without their sensing a call or knowing how the ministry fits their giftedness and without being given the necessary training and ongoing support they need to make their ministry satisfying and effective. Motivation wanes, especially if they can see no tangible results, and they often develop a sense of frustration and failure and want to drop out of the program. They may conclude that they just do not have the needed spiritual gifts, and it could be very difficult to ever get them to serve again. Some of the content areas for equipping and training have already been mentioned. As well as training for specific tasks, both within and outside the Church, I believe that all laity would benefit tremendously from courses in effective listening and communication skills and interpersonal relationships. In addition, those who see themselves in helping ministries outside the institutional church would benefit from basic training in

psychology, sociology, decision-making, counseling, first aid, and principles of healthful living. As Diehl states, what is needed is “a network of Christian laypersons who are skilled in the early detection of human problems” (Diehl 1976, 45). To this I would add, the treatment of and ministering tohuman problems, as well as just their detection. For others who see themselves as verbally sharing their faith, courses in Bible study, theology and friendship and/or lifestyle evangelism and small group dynamics would be helpful. Of course, equipping and training need not be through formal classes only, although much can be done by that method. Equipping can also be accomplished through sermons, role-plays, weekend retreats, support groups, individual mentors and other less formal ways. One more aspect of preparing and empowering laity for ministry should be briefly mentioned. If people are to minister, then not only must there be a calling, identification of gifts and preparation and training, there ought also to be recognition of the call by others, commissioning and appointing by the church, as well as support and accountability . (The latter should be on the part of both the lay person and the church.) Unfortunately, from the writer’s experience, these last aspects are not given the serious consideration and weight that they deserve. Finally, in order for the laity to be liberated and empowered to fulfiltheir Godordained roles, the clergy need to ensure that their leadership style is appropriate. To this topic we shall now turn our attention.

The Role of Leadership Style in Liberating & Empowering the Laity One of the greatest crises facing the world is the crisis of leadership and, as John C. Maxwell states, "Everything rises and falls on leadership" (Maxwell 1993, x). The

church is also influenced to a large degree by the kind of leadership it has, and today, as never before, there is a great need to have leaders fit for the challenges facing the church as the 21st century approaches. According to Kenneth O. Gangel, "Churches . . . and scores of other Christian organizations suffer in these crisis times because of misleadership . . . ineffective leadership" (Gangel1997, 31). On a similar note, Christian researcher George Barna says, "Assuming that decent teaching without good leadership can adequately direct people's spiritual paths and personal lives is the recipe for disaster that has permitted the Church to lose its influence and impact" (Barna 1998, 26). According to Barna, the definition of a leader includes five key attributes. He says, "

A leader is one who mobilizes; one whose focus is influencing people; a

person who is goal driven; someone who has an orientation in common with those who rely on him for leadership; and someone who has people willing to follow them" ( Barna1997, 23). Of course, a spiritual leader must influence his members "not by the power of his own personality alone but by that personality irradiated and interpenetrated and empowered by the Holy Spirit" (Sanders 1967, 20). These leaders need to be the kind who will empower God’s people to fully utilize the spiritual gifts God has given them. Alternative Styles of Leadership There are at least three main leadership styles which have been identified within administrations. These are called autocratic, laissez-faire and democratic (Turner 1977, 22). The autocratic leader decides all policy and issues all orders to the group members. The laissez-faire leader provides only minimal leadership of any kind. The democratic leader allows most for freedom of expression, group interaction and policy determination, as well as showing greatest tolerance and respect for the dignity and equality of all group members. This style has been shown to result in the highest morale of the group and to be the most effective in the majority of circumstances (Lall and Lall 1979, 202).

A major shift in the field of social psychology has recently affirmed the view that leadership is a set of learned skills rather than a set of characteristics found in only one person in a group (Turner 1977, 21). Too often churches have been oriented toward dramatic and/or “charismatic” leaders and have tended to depend on them with the consequent feeling that “our group can’t meet or decide anything until our leader arrives.” This, of course, must lead to an over-dependence upon the leader by the group resulting in a lack of growth of the group as a whole. Recognizing the fact that leadership skills can be learned by more than just the gifted few and that a democratic style of leadership is most effective, should lead to a more healthy relationship between leader and group members. A hindrance to a healthy relationship between a leader and his group is a strong hierarchical system or a strict autocratic style. Robert K. Greenleaf has discussed the problems resulting from a hierarchical system (Geenleaf1977, 63). Although mainly in the context of institutions, his conclusions could also apply to leadership within the church. We can summarize them as follows: 1. It is abnormal and corrupting as no one is perfect and all need the help and correction of others.

2. It leads to a barrier to communication because people are put into roles of superior/subordinates and afraid to say what they feel.

3.

A protective “image of omniscience” is often adopted by the leader, which inevitably results in disillusionment when members see his human weaknesses.

4. There are fewer leaders trained for the future.

5.

There is a major interruption in the group when the leader leaves.

It appears therefore that a hierarchical structure and/or an autocratic leadership style are not conducive to the most effective church leadership.

Carl S. Dudley claims that three styles of pastoral leadership can be identified, based on the “distance between the pulpit and the pew” (Dudley 1978, 71). These are specialist, generalist, and lover. According to Dudley, the smaller church especially, being built around relationships, wants rather a lover. By this he means a source of stability and the “tangible symbol of love” (Ibid., 72).

People are not so much interested in the pastor's professional skills as they are in seeing him as a real person, faults and all. In fact, often the remembrance or recital of stories of the pastor’s human failings and minor “slip-ups” are an indication that he has been accepted as a person in his own right, and not simply because of his role as pastor. As one study concluded: Churches do not necessarily want professionals. They want friends with professional skills . . . They want competent people who feel their needs, understand their dreams and share with them in seeking ways to realize their potential . . . It is not so much what we do that frees congregations, but who we are in relation to them. (Brown et al. 1977, 35) It thus seems clear that for a person to be an effective Christian leader, he must be democratic, competent, and above all, understanding and human. Before becoming more definitive with regard to effective styles of leadership within the church, the model presented in Scripture needs to be considered.

The Biblical Model of Leadership In developing a Christian understanding of leadership we need to adopt an organic organization model, based on the nature of the living body of Christ, rather than an institutional one (Richards 1980, 39). In this model, the Christian leader does not try to usurp the position of ‘head’ which belongs to Christ. The main Biblical terms used for local leadership are elder (presbyteros) which literally refers to an older, wise and respected man; bishop (episkopos) which speaks of a caring, people oriented overseer; and pastor (poimen) who is literally a shepherd. The local church leader is seen then, not as a manager or ruler, but rather, as Richards says, " one who with the wisdom gained by personal experience builds an intimate relationship with others who he cares for and tends with a view toward their growth and maturity” (Ibid., 92). The leader’s role can thus be seen more as that of an equipper and facilitator of the body rather than as head or controller. He is to prepare God’s people for service so that the body of Christ may be built up. But what of the style of leadership which the Bible advocates? According to Jesus, Christian leadership differs greatly from what the world in general thinks of leadership. Notice His words: Yeknow that the princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them, and they that are great exercise authority upon them. But it shall not be so among you: but whosoever will be great among you, let him be your minister; And whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant: Even as the Son of Man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many. (Matt20:2528 KJV) This implies an active, servant style of leadership in contrast to that of secular leaders who most often grasp at authority and tell others what to do. Therefore the distinctive pattern of Christian leadership is that of the servant. This kind of leadership is not only more Christian, it produces more results in its effects on others. Servants, by definition, are fully human.

Greenleaf says servant leaders are functionally superior because “they are closer to the ground . . . becauseof this they are dependable and trusted” (Ibid., 42). Roger Brown, in discussing the acquisition of morality, points out that seeing attitudes and values expressed in life produces much more change in behavior than merely being ‘told’ what to do (Brown 1965, 387). No doubt Jesus understood this as we note that His method of leading involved teaching by personal example as well as by his preaching. He thus modeled the ideal leader before His disciples. The concept of incarnational ministry is relevant at this point and is basic to true Christian leadership. The reality of the gospel is to be incarnated in the behavior and character of the Christian leader. Greenleaf claims that true leadership is bestowed upon a person who is by nature a servant (Ibid.,8). He sees leadership, as such, as “something given or assumed, that could be taken away” but that the servant nature is “the real man, not bestowed, not assumed, and not to be taken away” (Ibid.). How does one become a servant leader? Greenleaf suggests that it begins with “The natural feeling that one wants to serve, to serve first. Then conscious choice brings one to aspire to lead” (Ibid.,13). As Ted Engstrom says, “New Testament leadership is not flashy public relations and platform personality, but humble service to the group” (Engstrom 1976, 41). The very essence of leadership is “going out ahead to show the way . . . a leader says: ‘I will go; follow me!’ while knowing that the path is uncertain, even dangerous” (Greenleaf 1977, 15). A leader then, according to our model, is not a superior or a dictator. Rather he is “primus inter pares - first among equals” ( Ibid., 60), who leads the way by serving -

rather than ruling. What does this latter model imply? Firstly, it should be clear that a servant does not command the obedience of those he serves. It is true that Scripture knows

of a definite authority invested in leaders: “We ask you too, my brothers, to get to know those who work so hard among you. They are your spiritual leaders to keep you on the right path. Because of this high task of theirs, hold them in highest honor. Live together in peace . . . " (1 Thess 5:12-13 Phillips). There is a place for vital and aggressive leadership within the church, but how that authority is exercised in keeping others “on the right path” is not clarified in the above Scripture passage. To find the answer, we can note the words of Peter to his fellow elders: Now may I who am myselfan elder say a word to you my fellow-elders? I speak as one who actually saw Christ suffer, and as one who will share with you the glories that are to be unfolded to us. I urge you then to see that your “flock of God” is properly fed and cared for. Accept the responsibility of looking after them willingly and not because you feel you can’t get out of it, doing your work not for what you can make, but because you are really concerned for their well-being. You should aim not at being little “tin gods” but as examples of Christian living in the eyes of the flock committed to your charge. And then, when the Chief Shepherd reveals Himself, you will receive that crown of glory which cannot fade. You younger members must also submit to the elders. Indeed all of you should defer to one another and wear the “overall” of humility in serving each other. God is always against the proud, but He is always ready to give grace to the humble. (1 Pet 5:11-5 Phillips) We note here that any idea of leaders using their position to insist that others obey,is entirely absent. Christian leaders are servants who do not command or demand. Do they then have no authority? Richards gives the answer when he claims that such leaders have “the most compellingof all authorities: the authority of example, the imperative of competence” (Richards 1972 125). One could imagine authority based on such things as the ability to use coercive power to force obedience, the inbuilt authority of a position or role, or special ability and competence. Obviously, the first of these three alternatives is not a possibility for a Christian leader. Of the basis for authority which havebeen mentioned, the one which is most effective and closest to the biblical ideal is that which is based on ability and competence

combined with a genuine servant-like interest and concern for those being led. This kind of authority can usually only exist in the context of relatively close interpersonal relationships. Also, because it is based on the recognition of demonstrated qualities, it can produce a conformity which is characterized by a desire to respond on the part of the follower. This authority then, which is gained by the quality of the leader’s life, will be granted freely by those who know and respect that leader. Other Key Insights Concerning Good Leadership Lall suggests twelve main factors in a leader’s style which result in high morale and eleven administrative factors which affect morale negatively (Ibid., 203). Of the former, there are several which seem most vital for successful church leadership. These could be summarized and adapted to a local church situation as follows: (1) The minister will encourage members to share their ideas, complimenting them and giving credit where due. (2) He will trust the members. (3) He will not be hypocritical. (4) He will refrain from favoritism. (5) He will develop plans and programs with his members and consult them before making any changes which will affect the church. Of the factors which affect morale negatively, the following summarized and adapted list seem most appropriate to a church situation: (1) domination of meetings by the pastor; (2) lack of leadership; (3) lack of training and materials for members to do their work effectively; (4) lack of planning; (5) giving responsibility without authority; (6) lack of personal concern for members. To this we could add; the lack of opportunity for involvement in planning and goal setting. If the positive factors mentioned above are implemented by leaders in a church and the negative factors avoided, then the result most surely will be a happier and more efficient church membership.

The test of any style of leadership is in answering these questions asked by Greenleaf: “Do those served grow as persons? Do they, while being served, become healthier, wiser, freer, more autonomous, more likely themselves to become servants?” (Ibid., 13-14). Thus the kind of leadership we are advocating is not that of superior to subordinate but one of servant ministry or of an equal who shares with his people in their joys and problems, and who by his godly example, inspires them to want to follow him. This kind of leader will be the one who remembers Christ’s words: “Whatsoever you wish that men would do to you, do so to them” (Matt 7:12 RSV). The writer believes that the kind of leadership style advocated here is best suited to facilitate the liberating and the empowering of the laity for ministry. Conclusion We have seen in this chapter that the recognition of the role of the laity as ministers within and without the church confines, and their subsequent releasing and empowering for ministry, is both a biblical truth and a necessity for the future health and growth of the Church. In order for this to happen to an even greater extent than at present, pastors must take seriously the nurture and training of their church members. They must also adopt an enabling, servant style of ministry which encourages and develops the gifts and abilities of the members, allowing them to “do” real ministry. Of course, none of this will be really fruitful unless it is accompanied by much prayer and seeking for the ministry and power of the Holy Spirit to bring revival to the lives of individual members and to the life and ministry of the church as a whole. Only then, will the Church really “come alive” and the Gospel Commission finally be completed.

Neil W Watts Brisbane, Australia.