What Do We Mean by Lay?
This web site, and the group that has commissioned it, is currently named “Lay Forum”. There is some debate about the usefulness of that phrase. Here’s my thoughts on the pros and cons of continuing with the term.
The English word, “Lay” comes from the Latin word laicus, and the Greek words, laos (people) and laikos (of the people). As the New Testament was written, this word would have referred to all people, without any distinctions related to status or office. With the development of a clergy culture, and the privilege associated with that culture, the word lay came to mean “not clergy”, with overtones in some cases of uneducated, untrained and disempowered.
The Uniting Church’s future seems to be moving away from the clear cut delineation between the ordained and the not ordained. We have capacity to commission lay celebrants for weddings, funerals, baptism and eucharist. Many of our congregations are pastored by people who are not ordained, many of whom have no interest in being ordained.
So why set up a group called the Lay Forum? My observations tell me that the move was an effort to kickstart a movement that bypassed the control mechanisms often associated with “placement” in the Uniting Church. Australian author Gerard Arbuckle in his 1993 book, “Refounding the Church: Dissent for Leadership”, observes that the people who most resist prophetic examination of the foundations of any institution are the people who have the most to gain by keeping things as they are. The people who initially formed the Lay Forum, I believe, realised that something had to happen among the people.
The Uniting Church in Australia, despite its Reformation commitment to the ‘priesthood of all believers’, is still strongly focused on clergy, their recruitment, their training, their placement, their support, and their removal when things go wrong. Presbytery and Synod gatherings are dominated by clergy. Where else would you go to find such a high proportion of clergy?
It will take some time for this group to gather the confidence to converse as the people, hosting dialogue in which all voices are welcome, no matter what status or position is held in or out of the church. I am hoping that this group will start taking initiatives at a local level without waiting for a ‘top down’ leadership from our ordained ministers. I am also hoping that ordained ministers will rediscover something of what it means to be one of the people, set aside for a leadership role perhaps, but walking alongside others who also have calling and gifting for serving in the church community and beyond.
So is “Lay Forum” the most helpful name to be using? Probably not. The term “Lay” is caught up in almost two thousand years of clergy focused church culture, and suggests a looking back rather than looking forward. The word “lay” in the church context is unknown or regarded with cynicism by the emerging generations of leaders who are focused on action and reflection, not status. In fact, the term is more likely to be associated with sexual activity, or the production of eggs!
There is some discussion around the concept of “Future Church”, with a focus on progressive thinking and action. And so the Lay Forum’s Action/Learning web site has been named “Future Church in Action”. There’s some inspiration from the Future Church network in New Zealand in which people on the edges of traditional church have engaged in ’spirited conversations’ that lead to action. The Lay Forum’s conference in September is on the theme of Future Church. Maybe we’ll find a few clues there.
So how does being a lay movement pan out? For one, I’d be advocating for participation by people, without regard to their status. That might mean cutting out the use of “Rev” titles. It might mean being careful to avoid “up front” monopoly of conversation, which can be a trap anyone can fall into, ordained or not. It might mean listening to the priorities of people whose lives are not caught up in the running of local congregations, and who are able to exercise their calling in ways that aren’t associated with turning up to sing, pray and listen to sermons.
What do you think?
As a former Methodist local preacher I certainly learned a lot as I read and prepared sermons. I found my voice . I like to think that my services were appreciated though I’m not banking on it. The problem became I wanted a conversation. A deep one I mean, about things that really matter. I stopped wanting to listen to ‘preachers’ telling me what I already knew but had lots of questions about. I had a few answers,not too many though because faith is a fuzzy thing which is about taking you out of your comfort zone. Church seemed to be all about the Ultimate Comfort Zone, that is, Heaven.
Best wishes to the Lay Forum in opting to dare to open a discussion!
I am fully in agreement with you on your discussion of the origin and implications of use of the word Lay and the direction in which we might hope that the Uniting Church will move. For “strategic†reasons, however, I would argue for retaining the word for the time being. It may well be that 21st Century people do not have a ready conception of Lay but that very ignorance may well spark curiosity. It suffers less from the fuzziness of definition which can come from terms like, religion, faith, future, emerging, progressive and so on. A more important reason to retain the word for a while is that it makes it clear, that this is an initiative coming from concerned non-professional (in the religious sense) people of the church. I doubt very much that the forum would have got off the ground if it had been left to members of the clergy. This is not because they universally do not see the need for such a facility but because there are so many constraints (in terms of peer expectations, job risks, governing hierarchies, procedural conventions) which inhibit clergy from venturing beyond their professional boundaries. While I dearly hope for the complete merging and blurring of these dividing lines as you outline I think it is too early just yet to remove the distinction in our case. By providing a resource distinct from their prescribed channels the clergy have in the Lay Forum (with which they are encouraged to associate) an opportunity for them, too, to do some doctrinal exploration.
I am really in support of the term ‘lay’ but not to differentiate from ‘ordained’. I see it as a term that allows anyone to have an opinion - the non-professional, the non-practitioner, the non-expert, as well as those who have specialist knowledge. It is important that all voices are heard in an inclusive church and this is a great way to free up and encourage open discussion.
I avoid using the word “lay” for all the reasons you have presented within your excellent summary. I prefer to use a word that, in my opinion, has better currency within the UCA. Members. This a word that is important for us as its the best word used to describe us within the basis of union. Within the UCA we have no clergy, we have no laity. We have members. Some are ordained, ie given orders to take up specified roles and responsibilities. But such orders are subordinated to our joint membership to the body of Christ. We are not even members of the UCA in the Basis of Union. We are members of Christ and of one another. This all happens before we apply any pragmatic, theological or ideological lenses or biases to our expression and practice. So I read this forum with interest and gratitude.
Geoff agreed. Thanks for your comments. There still however remains quite a marked difference between ministers of the word so to speak and layity. In fact as far as I know there is only one community minister in Queensland. I take your point about no ministers not even members of a church. ciao paul