Sherman Kuek
Published in Catholic Asian News (August 2008 Issue)

Christianity – or any religion, for that matter – is structured around the roles of clergy and laity. A religious institution thrives on the vitality of these two roles, in a sense, reflecting both the sacred and the secular dimensions of religion. Even so, the dynamics between these two roles brings a certain tensive character into the realm of the institution we call “Church”. This tension is, of course, provoked and further intensified with the onset of modernity and critical thinking among the Christian populace.

Let us attempt to comprehend the different dynamics between the clerical roles and that of the laity in the three major streams of Christianity in existence today. For each of these traditions, we shall delineate the way in which the clergy and laity are ordered and examine the roles of the laity within its structural scheme.

THAT’S THE WAY IT IS
I. Catholics – Government by Hierarchy. The Catholic Church has arguably the most straightforward structure, being governed by the pope as the visible head of the universal Church. In understanding the Apostle Peter as bearing the role of leadership in the college of apostles, the pope as the successor of Peter retains this Petrine character in his ministry. Whilst other bishops too are successors of the apostles and function supremely in their dioceses, they do not function apart from the Petrine office of the pope. Assisting the bishops in their dioceses are priests and deacons.

The Catholic institutional structure is top down (unlike the Orthodox structure, as we shall later see) in that the election of bishops neither involves the lay populace nor even a significant segment of the clerical population within a diocese. In the selection of a bishop, the papal nuncio usually solicits names from the other bishops of a country, and then selects three to be forwarded to Rome where the Congregation for Bishops attends to such elections with the approval of the pope. Evidently, the ordering of the hierarchy does not involve the lay faithful in the Church.

The “lay faithful” refers to those baptised faithful not called by God to ordained ministry within the Church. Whilst they are not responsible for the constitution of the hierarchy, the Church assigns a very special role to the laity by virtue of their presence in the secular realm of the world. The laity are distinctly called to share in the priestly, prophetic and kingly functions of Christ by bringing Him to the world in a way that the clergy cannot. This charge is thus explicitly stated by Pope Pius XII:

Lay believers are the front line of Church life; for them the Church is the animating principle of human society. Therefore, they in particular ought to have an ever-clearer consciousness not only of belonging to the Church, but of being the Church, that is to say, the community of the faithful on earth under the leadership of the Pope, the common Head, and of the bishops in communion with him. They are the Church.

The preservation of order within the Catholic Church institution is relegated to the hierarchy so that distinctions of both the roles of the clergy and laity are well-defined. This distinction does well to avoid a temptation to pander to either “clericalism” or “laitism”. The clergy function in some unique ways that the laity cannot, but their unique prerogatives are also the very charisms that empower the laity to function effectively in the realm of the secular. The Church is thereby resoundingly affirmed as a people of God, every member of its community being personally called and individually charged by Him with a specific mission in the world.

II. Orthodox – Joint Government. The Eastern Orthodox Church, the most prominent embodiment of Orthodox Christianity, is a communion comprising fourteen separate autocephalous hierarchical churches in full recognition of one another (excluding the fifteenth autocephalous, the Orthodox Church in America, whose autocephaly is still a matter of dispute). Each autocephalous church is governed by a supreme patriarch. Whilst there is an ecumenical patriarch – a role assumed by the Patriarch of Constantinople – his ecumenical patriarchate is one of ceremonial honour and unity of fellowship rather than one that effects juridical implications.

The autocephalous churches tend to organise from the bottom up. Most of these churches permit for the participation of lower level clergy and laity in the election of bishops, albeit in varying magnitudes. In such autocephalous churches, people of varying positions have some degree of empowerment to vote in church matters and policy making. The patriarchs of the fourteen autocephalous churches will appoint leaders nominated by the grassroots, who will then with the approval of the patriarchs participate in the election processes.

The polity of the Orthodox Church reflects a greater authority-sharing system between the clergy and the laity. The clergy constitute the sacred priesthood and the laity constitute the royal priesthood. Whilst the clergy cannot celebrate the divine liturgy without the participation of the laity, the laity cannot perform the liturgy without the sacramental presidency of the clergy. The Church is most often jointly governed by the clergy and the laity. Of course, these statements by no means contradict the position of the Catholic Church; however, they are more apparently reflected in the practical life of the Orthodox Church.

III. Protestants – Priesthood of All Believers. The Protestant communities are extremely varied in their ecclesial structures. These structures range from highly regulated episcopal systems like the Anglican communities to congregational systems such as the brethren communities. But fundamentally, an underlying principle of the Protestant ethos is the priesthood of all believers. Since this principle lay at the nucleus of the Protestant Reformation, the Protestant movement embodies a high level of lay participation. Admittedly, this high permissiveness for lay participation has constituted an attractive factor for many lay Christians.

In a vast many Protestant communities, the laity in fact possesses authority which exceeds that of the clergy. Many Protestant clerical ministers are considered to be employed and salaried by the financial contributions of the lay populace. Simply put, they are hired and fired by the lay people. As such, they are held accountable to the governing boards of their local churches. This also impacts their ministerial roles such that they are told exactly how many sermons to preach in a month, what their working hours should be, and how they should account for their appointed tasks.

Therefore, where they fail to perform to the expectations of the people, or have offended a large segment of the congregation, or seek to effect change in a resistant congregation’s values and behaviour patterns, they inadvertently see themselves leaving within a relatively short season in a particular parish.

A DIVINE CONSPIRACY?
Perhaps lay people who have a deep fascination with the “authority of the masses” might find themselves more agreeable with Protestant structures; and rightly so, that is perhaps where they should be. But those acutely aware of the positions of the Catholic and Orthodox Churches understand that the issues of apostolic succession and validity of the sacraments are in serious question when one seeks alliance with Protestantism. Is the power of the laity so crucial that it should be acquired at the expense of the divine nature of the Church?

If the answer is “no”, this leaves us with two possibilities – the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church.

Now, let us consider the Orthodox form of governance. One would have thought that with such practice of democracy in the Orthodox Church, the laity would have been rather contented with their significance in matters pertaining to ecclesial government and liturgical participation. But this is far from the reality. Tensions between clergy and laity yet exist in the Orthodox institution. Some contemporary examples of these tensions are the struggles between the clergy and laity in the Greek Orthodox Church and the Orthodox Church in America. In fact, such tensions are less present in Catholic polity because of the clear distinctions drawn between the roles of the clergy and the laity.

Perhaps the only avenue for the existence of a harmonious symbiotic relationship between clergy and laity, wherein the significance of both are equally affirmed, is a recognition of the oft silent but all important role of divine election in the vocations of the faithful. Whilst the Catholic Church recognises the common priesthood of the faithful by “the unfolding of baptismal grace”, God elects from among the lay faithful a ministerial priesthood to be “at the service of the common priesthood”. It is through the ministerial priesthood that Christ “unceasingly builds up and leads His Church” (CCC 1547). Whilst many lay people perceive the hierarchy as a hindrance to lay empowerment, on the contrary, without the ministerial priesthood the lay are not empowered to live lives of faith, hope, and charity.

One’s reflections on the roles of clergy and laity must be considered from the perspective of the nature of the Church rather than from the socio-political perspective of power and authority. When the proper perspective is employed, the clerical role is rightly perceived as an issue of divinely appointed roles and responsibilities, not of power and glory. A misplaced focus breeds mistrust and conflict, which results in the nature of the Church – and therefore Christ – being compromised.