Post Christendom theology of work and Spirit.

Had an interesting conversation 12 months ago.

Gordon Preece was teaching into a theology of work - been a recurring question for me and why this blog has the name (rainbows alluding to God's gifts distributed across creation- ie following God into all areas of life, and lasers being the tightly focussed times of training and celebration - and both being needed). Anyway, I'd gone to hear him teach on a theology of work - and got a clear and deep message.

(His background, incidentally, is full of innovation and prestigious positions at the boundaries of church, academia, business, outreach - including a prior executive director of the Urban Seeds movement where i heard him.  In what follows, the good ideas are his and the errors are mine -  he said it better and more graciously, so don't blame him. And I have of course checked if he is ok with being quoted in a blogging setting - and offered the chance to vet as well - but he was kind enough to say go for it.  (update : and even to endorse the  "nice dialogical feel" - ie the to and fro of discussion - of how I wrote it up, afterwards).  

So here goes. In a nutshell, he started by tackling the clergy / laity division. Interesting for an ordained minister :) - but made some things clear:  

• Biblically speaking, all Christians are called. (And 'calling' is first and foremost a question of being called to God, not to a function or region or ministry - that is a secondary thing. Calling to God is always primary).

• The biblical word for being called is cleros, from which we derive the word clergy 

• But biblically,  cleros does not mean a special class of 'ministers' who do the ministry.

• So all are called; all are cleros.

• Secondly, the word for laity comes from the word laos, which means people.

• The point: those we call clergy are of course part of the people, and thus laos.

• So the laity are cleros (called), and the clergy are laos (people). 

Well, i found that a clear and compelling, if somewhat provocative,  way to lay out the argument.

So i asked at the time,  .. given all this, and without meaning to be rude or disrepectful, but how do you function as an ordained  minister if this is true - kind of seems you've just undermined that whole distinction of a seperate role of clergy, as not really biblical?  He acknowledged the point - and commented along the lines of its currently most effective to change that thinking from inside that structure.

Also gave examples like this -  they had a woman in the church who was going to Queensland to do a biodiversity audit in a rainforest - so they interviewed her in front of the congregation about that work, and commissioned her to go and do good. 

Some will part company at that, no doubt.

But consider the alternative. Years of professional study, a sense of being called (cleros) in various areas, but nothing but a little bit of passing lip service to the significance of the role in the gathered community-  not the sense of such work being a full dimension where a calling might be worked out.

(week in, week out, emphasis on the centralised roles of clergy (good as they no doubt are) and relative silence about most other roles, emphasizes the sense of significance about which calling is most important - something i've observed in all varieties of church i've been in. )

Somehow, 20 centuries of religious practice has turned these words and roles into something different to their original meaning; where only some are cleros, as opposed to the masses who are laos (or the '4th order of ministry' or some such diminished term in some hierarchies etc). Conversely, we have an overworked religious class trying to stretch beyond whats possible as well.

I'm certainly not anti leadership - that's not my issue at all - my question is whether we're left with any kind of map or solid model to hold the significance of what most people actually do. I've had this questions for years;  every variety of church seems to end up suggesting that the 'ministry' - as done in the gathered body, usually by a limited professional class, is the main deal, even if its just by the relative silence and limited discussion about what most people do. I don't think its always intentional, but the logic and centralisation of the church meeting and institution contributes to this. 

but later i was troubled with some follow up questions emerging  .. and so i chased down some email   (very lightly edited for readability). Me: 

hi Gordon

enjoyed meeting you at seeds the other night

i was the one hanging round at the end, asking about thesis etc:)

loved the night : first (or maybe 2nd) discussion of a theology of work i've really heard

a follow up question if i may? you mentioned cleros means call (not necessarily clergy): and the audience response got a little enthusiastic on that point 

i guess [the response] was emerging from some sense of why is the accepted structure of church  functioning in a way that often seems to reproduce that clergy vs lay,  spiritual vs secular,  professional ministry vs flower roster: which can perhaps suppress the significance of a lot of significant work that Christians participate in (a little repressed angst at that on the night no doubt!)

but i was thinking afterwards : you mentioned Eph 4 and the equipping function of the apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers

question i had was: if those roles really did see their ministry as preparing God's people for works of service: and felt called to that equipping role: then the  critique of having clergy as a separate class that began  emerging on the night  (we're all called to God so is there is no special class of clergy) is maybe too simplistic

ie can we rehabilitate the sense of some being called, even set apart, to that role: called to teach, have prophetic voice etc: in preparing the wider body 

ie the scripture doesn't describe that fully democratic role we were all lining up to endorse the other night: there are still some given (called) to those roles: apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers: whose role is to equip the rest of the body

so what should those roles look like?  perhaps they can function inside the traditional church leadership structure? 

do you see what i'm getting at : given we're all called (cleros) : yet some are called to equipping roles (which might look more like clergy? )  : even if more does need to done to avoid the secular / spiritual sense, and to endorse the calling(s) we all have 

(...)

(a good theology of work) has been a deep question of mine for a long time and this was first (or maybe second) well thought through presentation i'd heard (maybe 2nd) 

liked your comment too that those growing into such questions can sometimes forget the formative spiritual disciplines and experiences that helped them along the way

 His response (again very lightly edited for clarity)

( ... greeting etc ...)

re Eph 4:12 and particular calling of clergy to equip Christians - universal cleros-  to walk worthy of our calling in the Gospel and as God's people who are to follow Christ in filling all, according to Ephesians 1 (picking up on the creation mandate to fill the earth). There does seem to be some sort of foundational gifts model here, but its very different to the one-man band model. Its all plural, it includes women, it's focussed on equipping, talent-scouting, training, discipling. And when people then use their gifts they grow up together into the full stature of Christ's true humanity. So, while it's not hierarchical, there is a strategic laser-like role of focussing on and conveying the original teaching that is crucial. But as in other parts of Paul and Hebs 6 & Jer 31:31 the new covenant's the goal is that we will all teach each other, not be reliant on the priesthood. 

(... )

The primary language for who we are is 'laos' or people of God (including clergy who are laity biblically). Church or ekklesia (called out to gather) is the Sunday gathering, town hall meeting (see the assembly or ekklesia at Ephesus in Acts when Paul and Barnabas are in big trouble) of the citizens of the city of God we're moving toward. It's to prepare God's people for when they scatter, 2 by 2, as Jesus sent the disciples, into the world's various spheres of service. The saints prepared on Sunday, are meant to sanctify those spheres of creation and culture, making them suburbs of the city of God.  

This whole-of-life sanctifying process gets lost when the Corinthians in 1 Cor 11 think of the sacred meal of the body of Christ separate from the way they should discern the body of Christ, i.e. their latecomer brother and sister slaves left the dregs to eat outside. 1 Clement reverses Paul's intent: separation of the sacred meal now presided over by clergy, analogous to the magistrates in Rome, versus ordinary meals and the laity analogous to the plebs of Rome. This is reinforced in Constantine's Christendom where the laity's role is to pray, pay and obey, right down to the present day, despite the Refomatin 's partial reclamation of the priesthood of all believers. see www.lausanne.org - try 'marketplace ministry' its Lausanne Occasional Paper 40 for more detail.

lots in that: 

 Particularly like the idea that  "the saints prepared on Sunday, are meant to sanctify those spheres of creation and culture, making them suburbs of the city of God. "  

Personally, I have a desire or longing or hope for the church being effective in prophetic listening and speaking, exactly so we are effective at that wider task.

And while on that topic, who, by the way, is the first person in Scripture described as being filled with the Spirit?

Not a Levite, or a prophet, priest or king. Not David, Moses or any other well known figure.

Then the LORD said to Moses,  “See, I have chosen Bezalel son of Uri, the son of Hur, of the tribe of Judah,  and I have filled him with the Spirit of God, with wisdom, with understanding, with knowledge and with all kinds of skills—  to make artistic designs for work in gold, silver and bronze,  to cut and set stones, to work in wood, and to engage in all kinds of crafts (Ex 31)

A craftsperson / artist. A worker. Interesting. May God give us the ears to hear (the Lord said), and to "see ..."  what he is doing; whom his Spirit is preparing for significant things, maybe from unexpected quarters. 

Of course this discussion hardly fulfills the title of the blog post - maybe suggests some outline or sketch of such things. "Towards" a  theology of such things, might be more accurate, but its already a pretentious sounding enough title as it is. That bit was definitely me :).

Update: i forgot a follow up point thats probably relevant, re the roles mentioned in Eph 4 (ie apostle, prophet, evangelist, pastor and teacher), which are given, according to that passage,  to prepare and equip God's people.  That is, those roles do not just do the work  - but are gifted to build up the body to do the work  - eg the evangelist also develops and trains for evangelism among the body, just as the apostle's pioneering of new ground opens  new ground for the rest of the body, and the prophet promotes that aspect of hearing and knowing God's heart.

Anyway, my question:

 no doubt you've read Shaping of Things to Come: would you consider that the teaching role of pastors and teachers has often taught out the role of evangelist prophet and apostle, as they seem to think?  (speculative text though)

[To round out whats behind that question, that book suggests that ministry training tends to be more about certifying learning and academia - thus reinforcing certain approaches and filtering out or truncating others - so less cultivating, even dismissal, of the range of vital gifts that is needed for the vital life of the church]. 

Gordon's response: 

re pastor-teacher being privileged over apostle, prophet, evangelist, there's a truth in that. Though i am a pastor-teacher we can easily end up just endorsing the status quo without the original energy of the apostolic, the powerful, unsettling word of the prophet, and the eye for the outsider of the evangelist.

(Although i suspect taking that point on personally might not do justice to his own story - sounds like the other things have been in the mix there).