neither clergy nor lay.

Paul had a massive task on his hands - pioneering the Gentile mission while giving the theological and scriptural foundations of how it is that Jew and Gentile are now on equal footing in Christ, how the covenantal and salvation history has panned like this - a concern informing most of his letters -dealing with both the big picture of how God has made the two one, and the pastoral concerns for how they should get along.

So, for example, what of the original Abrahamic status as children of God? What of food, feasts, circumcisions and other markers? Indeed in its in this context that we get the justification by faith discussions - as much as we like to approach them out of original context as abstract theology, the context is re-evaluating the status of Torah and thus Israel -  in the light of the unexpected fulfillment in Christ and outpouring of the Spirit on Gentiles, and thus looking at consequent status of Jew and Gentile.

Galatians 3:28 is a typical summary line (see 3:4 ff):

So in Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith, for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.

Hard to think of bigger distinctive than slave or free -  pause to imagine that for a moment - affirmed as equal in the believing community.  No wonder Corinth was having trouble maintaining this flat position - no elite or commoner either, so radically against their social structure that they default back to it. Or Jew or Gentile - the primary religious identity of God's people now radically redefined. Even Peter had trouble resisting the temptation to re-prioritise the Jewish status. Or male and female - we're somewhat more sensitized to that one - and still struggling with it -  though it was a basic distinction with much stronger sociological demarcations in the ancient world.

So it seems remarkable after centuries of reflection that we take biblical language for the calling of all (cleros)  and the common foundation of all people of God (laos) and turn it back into another distinction and point of demarcation: clergy and laity. As if Paul would have recognised 'ministry' becoming the preserve and mandate of 'clergy' - if he could even decipher what we have done to both terms (and possibly gone ballistic when he did - you have priests! only some can preside at communion! new class of Levites!  No wonder the Chinese - who can't do all that - are outstripping you! ) 

Church leadership, yes. Supporting those who labour among them, yes (though Paul argues that position to indicate he is not taking up the right with the Corinthians (1 Cor 9) - indeed will work with his hands  - with all the  humiliation that implies to them -  rather than let that particular congregation provide his patronage and control his purse strings  - he needs the freedom of no strings attached in sorting them out - and they take offence at him avoiding that cultural norm of patronage (2 Cor 12:13))

But he does sometimes take support from elsewhere, so that principle of paid support for some stands, at least in some cases, in principle.

But the foundational category of who is 'in' is so radically redefined, that one can't imagine a clerical class who officiate in the local body, as against the laity who pray, pay and obey, developing under his watch.

So can we add, in Christ there is neither clergy nor lay?   Or are there some philosophical - or theological - reasons why that distinction still holds primary weight - even though Jew and Gentile, male and female, slave and free - don't? The weight of history, perhaps. But maybe that distortion is why our numbers don't amount to actually doing all that much? Who really does the Ephesians 4 releasing of the people? So many areas where we have let the church become something else. But thats the next post i think.

Since i think i'm maybe wrestling a larger issue anyway. 

Alan Hirsch:

We needed a new type of leadership, one with the courage to question the status quo, to dream of new possibilities, and to innovate new ways of being the people of God in a post-Christian culture. We needed missionaries to the West, but our seminaries were not producing them. If we take the five categories of church leadership from Ephesians 4:11, they were training leaders to be teachers and pastors for established congregations, but where were the evangelists, the prophets, and the apostles to lead the mission of the gospel into the world?

Missional churches require all Five aspects of ministry Leadership on the team.
Apostles, Prophets, Evangelists, Shepherds, and Teachers—I refer to these together as APEST. But when I looked at my church and most others, I saw congregations dominated by leaders who were shepherds and teachers. What happened to the other leadership types?

Where have all the APEs gone?

During Christendom, the centuries when Christianity dominated the culture, the church acquired a fundamentally non-missional posture. Mission beyond the walls of the institution was downplayed because every citizen was deemed at least a nominal Christian already. What was needed were pastoral and teaching ministries to care for and instruct the congregation, and to draw underdeveloped Christians back into the church on Sunday.

So, these two functions were eventually instituted as the leadership offices in the church, and the other three roles listed in Ephesians 4 (apostles, prophets, and evangelists) faded away as largely unnecessary. The system of church leadership we inherited from Christendom heavily favors maintenance and pastoral care, thus neglecting the church's larger mission and ministry.

          http://www.christianitytoday.com/le/2008/spring/7.32.html?start=1

also says, here and in the 'Shaping of Things to Come'  book: 

In most organizational systems, there is acknowledgement of the importance of these leadership functions:

• The entrepreneur: Innovator and cultural architect who initiates a new product, or service, and develops the organization.
• The questioner: Provocateur who probes awareness and fosters questioning of current programming leading to organizational learning.
• The communicator: Recruiter to the organization who markets the idea or product and gains loyalty to a brand or cause.
• The humanizer: People-oriented motivator who fosters a healthy relational environment through the management of meaning.
• The philosopher: Systems-thinker who is able to clearly articulate the organizational ideology in a way as to advance corporate learning. 

My boss once named me 'chief provocateur'; and current and previous roles have been innovation focussed so i resonate with some of those points. Not that we can do anything apart from God and in isolation of a good team - and finding and evolving roles has not been easy,  but work tends, eventually, in my experience, to release these forms; maybe more dynamic form and expressions for God to work with in many workplaces than in the institutional church?  Certainly much more time is spent trying to optimise peoples contributions.

PS
(I'm under no illusions, that those who potentially suffer this the most are the clergy...

Stop there. I added that  line and the following paragraph as a friend wanted to repost this, and i wanted to err on the side of being gracious to others who serve in the church.   But, i don't know that its true, generally speaking, that the cost is on the clergy, although it does to some extent. Their roles might be difficult in various ways and i will respect dedication. However i think the general cost to the wider church, the lay person, is much higher - a docile and under engaged congregational mentality is a higher cost, i think.  Right, continuing with a disclaimer so its not nasty ...

 - burdened with unrealistic expectations and workload etc around the roles that have inertia in their definition even as the culture changes and makes it harder. And i have no desire to add to their load with an ungrateful critique from the side .. given this is really where we have all got to, is the common shape of many churches, I'm convicted we need honour those in these roles, their gifts and commitment, even if a discussion on the biblical basis of the roles is desirable.  In my experience all take these roles very seriously and have felt called to it as a life of dedication and service, and lead to the best of their God given ability, and God really uses them to bless and lead.  Indeed critiques that can't honour that dedication seem to me problematic if not vexatious. Its just that the cultural construction of the role seems to sometime take on some unbiblical, two tier, dimensions, that risks distorting the map of who the people of God are.  Can overload some, and perhaps undermines a serious look at what the rest of the people do and could do.  I often think that leadership, for example, should be given away - perhaps churches and theological colleges could train leaders for a role in the wider culture, not trying to 'raise up leaders'  for the remaining secondary positions around 'the church'.  Maybe some do - but i suspect we still tend to the division.

(I went to a wonderful meeting the other day -  they called pastors and church leaders to stand. I happily prayed for a friend who fits the description.   But the issue remains that there are many Christians who are called to lead in significant ways mostly outside of these "ministry" roles.  (That word - diakonis - also means 'service' and i think is probably unhelpful when pigeon holed as 'church professional')  Others may have complex and heavy roles, which will not be named in such places, but which need support as well; the Christian high school teacher, social worker, health care professional,  coach, parent etc all would stay seated as not "in the ministry"; which is perhaps a reflection of the laos/clergy thing having got into our heads in a way that might not be helpful.

I think it happens too in places that don't use those clergy/laity terms but still have a people/minister model; the meeting in question didn't talk of clergy, and its culture was actually good at training people in gifts and wider application; nevertheless I wondered if identifying the category of "leaders" as "church based" risks a dis-empowerment of all others.  Seems to me there can be a time for focussing on church leaders, but perhaps could also be broadened  at times to acknowledge other forms of Christian service, spheres of influence, diverse types of leadership. (Doing so might help grapple with the theological underpinnings of their role as well - dissolve the secular spiritual divide we tend to associate with clergy and lay). 

So it seems to me.