On Clericalism

What are the biggest issues facing the Church today?  Nominalism?  Licentiousness?  The human heart?  Yes, yes, and absolutely!  

I would add another to this list: clericalism.

What do I mean by clericalism?  Well, I certainly don't mean the existence of clerics, spiritual authority, leadership structures, etc.  The New Testament is clear that spiritual leadership is from God and is to be obeyed.  By clericalism I mean an unhealthy separation or distinction between the clergy and the laity.  This is sometimes institutional, but it is just as often cultural and unspoken.  Some denominations and churches restrict liturgical or pastoral duties to clergy as a matter of principle, while others do it as a matter of habit or practicality.  It is sometimes the fault of the clergy who seek to retain power, control, or money, but it is perhaps more often the preference of laymen who are perfectly satisfied with a consumeristic relationship to God and the Church.  

What I want to explore here is why clericalism exists.  Why has this sharp divide between laity and clergy developed?  I think we can identify four factors that have contributed to the current status quo.

1) Holy orders.  If you are from a more formal tradition, like Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, or Anglicanism (my current home), you are probably familiar with the language of holy orders.  You may or may not be aware that the clergy who occupy these orders are not members of their own local churches, but are essentially on loan to the local congregation from the diocese.  Many less formal traditions, like Methodism and Presbyterianism, have similar arrangements, though they may use different terminology.

Historians argue over how and when these orders developed, and it is not my place or purpose to hash that out.  I believe that the New Testament presents a simpler form of government featuring elders (bishop and presbyter were originally used synonymously) and deacons.  There were a variety of other roles used by God as the Gospel initially spread, but the government and operation of the local church fell to these two offices (both of which are envisioned as being plural).  The bishop/presbyter distinction is present relatively early, but this was an organic development, not the original or prescriptive arrangement.  

To our point, this separation of clergy into an external group, however defined or labeled, creates a practical and psychological division from the laity.  Instead of respected, mature members of local churches who teach and lead by example, clergy are often viewed as the religious experts who are tasked with keeping the sheep in line.  "The Church" often becomes an administrative institution or hierarchy outside of the Body instead of the people of God themselves.   

2) Sacerdotalism.  Just as holy orders separate the clergy from the Body psychologically and institutionally, so, too, does sacerdotalism separate them from the people sacramentally.  This is part of a much bigger conversation, one into which we will not enter here, but I must simply say that when the presbyter is viewed as occupying a mediatorial role akin to the Old Testament priest, an unhealthy division occurs.  When the Table is viewed as an altar, and the Eucharist is viewed as a sacrifice confected by the priest, the presbyter/priest assumes a mediatorial role.  The layman's relationship with God--his access to God--is being mediated through another human being.  This, I believe, is blasphemous.

Under the Old Covenant Israel had both elders and priests (see this article for insight into the interesting, confusing etymology of priest in English), along with a variety of other officers/roles.  While Old Testament categories cannot always be imported directly into the New Covenant, it is significant that the New Testament never uses the language of the priesthood for the ecclesiastical officers of the New Covenant.  Jesus is our great High Priest.  The Body is a priestly nation (as Israel was meant to be).  Presbyters/bishops oversee the Body; they do not mediate between Christ and His Body.  No such mediator is necessary.  

When the presbyter is viewed sacerdotally, clericalism is almost unavoidable.  The role he plays, the vestments he wears, and even the physical space he occupies all accentuate and increase the distinction between him and the people in the pews.  The New Testament never envisions the elder (presbyter) in this way.

3) Professionalism.  The pastorate is often viewed as a career, even a comfortable, middle-class one.  Many traditions require graduate degrees and/or other certifications, and it is common for ordained clergy to ascend the corporate ladder, moving up the ranks to higher roles and bigger churches as they gain experience.  Besides the fact that this system creates obstacles for those with financial limitations, it also encourages an unhealthy distinction between the educated, career clergyman and the simple, common layman.  Our society constantly calls on us to "trust the experts" when dealing with matters of science, medicine, etc.  Unfortunately, clergy are often viewed this way, as well. 

Many modern pastors, especially senior pastors, are essentially CEOs.  This brings up the inconvenient question of whose kingdom is really being built, but, that aside, it reveals the unfortunate reality that churches are often businesses and parishioners are customers.  The lead pastor, whatever his title, is there to make sure the organization runs smoothly.  Now, all organizations require some level of, well, organization, so certainly pastors will have some sort of administrative or executive role, but too many times the majority of a pastor's time is spent on administrative tasks and managing the bureaucracy instead of actual shepherding.  I think most pastors would agree that this is unfortunate.     

Sacerdotalism comes into play here, as well.  Many priests are viewed as liturgical specialists.  They have been trained in the systems of their respective denominations.  They know the jargon, the movements, and the idiosyncrasies.  Almost all other pastoral and theological functions can be fulfilled by others, but only the professional priest can consecrate the elements on the altar.  This may be a spiritual function, but in a culture that loves specialization, it is viewed professionally nevertheless.   

4) Nominalism.  As long as Christianity has been legal, nominalism has a problem (probably before that, too).  This is the price we pay for a legal religion, especially when it is the official (or popular) religion of a land.  Unfortunately, human nature takes the easiest path.  Many Christians are happy to have a casual or cultural religion.  They are satisfied to go to church on Sunday morning (maybe), consume the product being offered, and throw a few dollars in the plate.  Check the box and see you next week!  This has always and will always be the level to which some "Christians" are willing to engage with God and the Church. 

However, even sincere Christians often want a mediator.  We want to follow a leader.  Like the Israelites at the foot of Mt. Sinai, we want a Moses to stand between us and God.  We're afraid of freedom.  We're afraid of access.  We seek to maintain a separation, a buffer, in between us and God.  We don't want the responsibility.  We don't want the weight.        

Clericalism is both produced by and exacerbated by these two tendencies.  Lazy, disengaged  Christianity produces a caste of spiritual experts willing to do everything.  The clergy doing everything, in turn, encourages a passive, docile laity.  Movements like Methodism began in direct response to this unfortunate reality.

Some closing thoughts.

I am not here to advocate for or to condemn any particular form of church government.  I think it is dangerous to be overly dogmatic on this issue as the New Testament never actual prescribes a particular form, nor has the Church ever really achieved uniformity on this issue.  Regardless of how you structure the leadership roles and what language you use, clericalism can creep in.

However, there are certainly traditions that deal with this more than others, and this for obvious reasons.  When your system emphasizes hierarchy and a sharp distinction between laity and clergy, you're going to fall into clericalism more often (shock!).  This is not to say that these structural issues cannot be overcome, but they are obstacles that must be intentionally counterbalanced.

I also want to be clear that this is not aimed at anyone or any group in particular.  Most of the pastors I know are very pastoral and faithful in their calling, despite the fact that they operate in systems that perpetuate clericalism.  They would, I am sure, mourn the passivity of the average American layman and advocate for more educated, engaged congregants.  

The crux of the issue is this: how do we view our spiritual leaders?  Are they professional Christians?  Are they a distinct group or class of Christian?  Or are they elders, men respected and raised up to help organize local congregations?  Are they priests who mediate our relationship to God?  Or are they brothers who shepherd, teach, and govern?