Lay Person or Muggle?
Can we just banish the term “lay person”?
I’m serious. Even though I grew up with this term, know more or less just what it means, and tend to use it myself, I still think it’s high time to get rid of it.
Why? Because it sets up a dichotomy between those who are experts and, well, those who most decidedly are not.
Not sure what I mean? Then just tell me what “lay person” means in the first place. Those reading this blog who have spent some time in seminary might be quick to remind me that it comes from the Greek word “laos” which means people. Okay, fine. Now tell me what “lay person” means to anyone who hasn’t studied Greek. That’s right, words more like “amateur” or “non-professional” or even “dabbler” come to mind. We even use it self-deprecatingly, as in “I’m just a lay historian, so don’t take me too seriously.”
I was talking about this with a colleague not too long ago when he shared that after his last congregational meeting one of the church council members said to him, “Pastor, every time you say the word ‘lay person’ I hear the word ‘muggle’.” For those not initiated into the Harry Potter universe, there are two kinds of people in Harry’s world: magical witches and wizards – Harry and his friends – and non-magical people called “muggles.”
“Every time you say the word ‘lay person’ I hear the word ‘muggle’.” Now do you see what I mean?
I don’t know, maybe this word worked back when the world was more or less Christian. Maybe, that is, it made sense to divide the world into two kinds of people – those who were practicing Christians and those who were professionals. But now that we have moved beyond an even nominally Christian culture we can’t afford to have the majority of Christians walking around thinking that they really don’t know what they’re doing and the other so-much-smaller group of Christians regarded by themselves and the rest as the experts, the ones (maybe the only ones?) really qualified to practice the faith in any kind of significant way.
In other words, we can no longer afford to divide the Christian world into professionals and amateurs. Frankly, in this wild and wooly postmodern, post-Christian world, we’re all amateurs, learning again and anew what it means to be a faithful disciple of Jesus in this day and age. Some of us may be a little better acquainted with the Christian tradition and have had some formal training in reading the Bible, and that’s great. But lots of others are probably more familiar with the changes, challenges, and opportunities of the everyday world. Which means that we’re in it together.
I also think that if we could get rid of the notion that some of us are professionals we might get more “regular” Christians involved in leadership. To be honest, I think pastors work too hard. Or, maybe better, they’re working too hard at the wrong things. Far too often, our clergy are the performers of the faith – you know, the ones who preach, offer pastor care, do Bible studies, and the like. We treat them like we might a concert musician, letting them do all the work while we sit as admiring spectators. My question at this stage in the game, particularly given the retreat of vibrant Christianity in our country, is why in the world we don’t have all Christians working at interpreting Scripture and making connections between faith and life (the sermon), caring for each other (pastoral care), and helping each other read the Bible in a way that helps them live their lives in the world today (Bible study)?
Don’t worry, the clergy still have an important role to play, but now rather than being the resident experts pastors function more like coaches and conductors, using their expertise to help us play – whether it be a game or piece of music – better. Maybe, in fact, if we eliminated the lay/clergy, amateur/professional distinctions we’d find more people willing to take all the things they know from their varied and diverse experiences in the world and see how all that applies to their – and our! – life of faith.
Now, of course, comes the question: What would I substitute in place of the traditional designation for those who are not ordained? I’m not sure. What about “everyday Christian”? We might play off the double meaning here in that you don’t have to be spectacular to be a Christian – we are an everyday kind of people – while also reminding us that our faith isn’t just for Sundays but should be lived, indeed, every day.
You might have some other – and probably better! – ideas than I do and, if so, I’d love for you to share them in the comments below. We’ll see if we can come up with a better way to talk about our shared call to be witnesses to the love of God. In the meantime, I guess we’ll just have to muddle forward, muggles, wizards, squibs (you’ll have to read the book!) and all the rest together. Thanks for your help!
Suggestions:
People of the Word
People Preachers
Disciples (currently my favorite )
Teammates (second favorite)
All great suggestions. Thanks, Jonathan!
The Priesthood of a Muggles
🙂
Leaders.
Spiritual leaders.
Let’s set the bar high!
Love it! 🙂
David
The only person that does not play an instrument in an orchestra
is the director. What are your thoughts re: Pastors
That’s a great point, Bill. Of course, all conductors originally played an instrument but then found they had a particular gift for helping others play better. If you haven’t watched Benjamin Zander’s TedTalk, take time to watch it at some point. It’s fantastic and gets at your point. You can find it here: http://www.davidlose.net/2012/04/music-passion-and-leadership
Hey David, I’m kind of surprised you didn’t say, “ministers” in your article. I’ve been to many congregations who proudly post in their Sunday bulletin that the “Minsters” of the congregation are, “All the People.” Another thought is to use the “brother and sister” language. We are all the same at the foot of the cross; it is by God’s grace that we are brothers and sisters in Christ….
Just a couple of thoughts.
Blessings,
David
“Ministers” has a long and distinguished history…but it also pretty complex in that we associate it so strongly with clergy. In fact, what you often hear is “lay minister” to make sure we know. Having said that, all the churches I served also had “minister: all the people of…” and “staff: clergy names.” Thanks!
I appreciate the point you’re making, David, but it’s kind weird from where I’m standing. I am not ordained, though I was once on my way to ordination. I’ve played that role of pastor — primary, professional designated spiritual care giver, steward of the Word and Sacraments — so I get that too. And of course I know your point here is, at least most basically, rhetorical (you do that rhetorical thing quite brilliantly of course). But is it not a bit odd to suggest that of the two words that we use to make this symbolic distinction you chose “lay people” as the one that gets dropped. I mean if the point is to collapse the dichotomy why not get rid of “clergy.” Or put differently, why are you, a clergy, making us drop the word that refers to “us” (I realize the us/them does even really hold up). I actually have quite a bit of pride in being “not ordained.” That’s an identity for me. If fact, most of us everyday Christians have it though we may give it varying currency.
Part of what’s strange to me about this is that we “lay people” are not the ones who created all the distinguishing structures to begin with. That was the clergys’ ideas. They developed the rituals of initiation for their own (we do this as Christians too, of course), they wear distinguished clothing, get special degrees at places we know little or nothing about (it’s like Hogwarts right?), etc. And in all that, still, OUR designation is the one that’s getting banished by someone who’s actually a clergy? It’s odd. Quite the power play really.
I know I know…I’m being crass and unfair, but it’s only to make a counterpoint here.
Thanks for the candid reply, Tim. And for calling me out on the clergy power-play. Not my intention at all, believe me. And I agree that most of this stuff was made up by clergy so, good bad or ugly, probably shouldn’t just be taken away from clergy willy-nilly. So if you like being a lay person, be it. Really. 🙂
At the same time… – figured you knew that was coming – …even though I realize some kind of designations are helpful to specify some of the different roles and offices we play and all the rest, it just seems like we can do better than “lay” which feels simultaneously antiquated and a tad condescending. But really, if that’s the way you want it, it’s yours.
Thanks, again, for the give and take.
Oh, and I appreciated the joke but left it out – both my kids and my parents sometimes read this blog. 🙂
The term “lay person” has never bothered me. I’m thinking I’ve been part of congregations that made me feel that my gifts were different from the preacher’s – but just as important to the Body of Christ!
And do continue to help those young pastors figure out how not to work so hard – that’s difficult, though, isn’t it if you feel called?
I agree with Tim. Being super-spiritual myself (aka, clergy) I think we need to do away with both clergy and lay–more importantly, do away with the division between them. We are all laos, and we are all kleros.
As for an alternative, I’ve been mulling “gathered ministers” and “scattered ministers” as well as “gathered ministries” and “scattered ministries.” While these don’t roll off the tongue, they DO do away with the chasm… as in, “gathered ministers” aren’t just those who are ordained, and even clergy have “scattered ministries,” or at least they should.
Why stop there. What divide up deacons, priests, bishops? Why divide Christian from non- Christian? Why have believers, non- believers? As god loves all? Why have baptized from un baptized as Xst died for ALL and the whole bloody mess is redeemed? Why bother with any of it? Why me or/and you? Good grief.
Thanks for this post, David. I struggle with this term a lot as well, but sometimes use it anyway in the moment. Sort of like “volunteer,” which seems to be the most popular among the people themselves in my context when they are describing any mode of churchly service beyond worship.
I think “disciple” is a good term, but it requires a lot of repetition before people will own it. Our first thought with “disciple” seems to be “those are Jesus’ elite posse from way back when whom we remember in stained glass.”
I actually wish we could recover the fullness of “member” in the sense of each being unique, essential members of Christ’s body (Rom 12 and 1 Cor 12). It’s biblical, it emphasizes how everyone matters in the community, and it’s organic–and everyone loves organic! Unfortunately, at least in many mainline denominations, we’ve lost that word as well by using it to mean “minimum required for club entrance.” We’ve really sold out on our own language.
Thank you for your insightful blog. I too struggle with the word lay, but for a slightly different reason. I am on the “lay roster” of the ELCA, as an Associate in Ministry. I often find myself trying to tell people what the differences are between the types of lay leadership; lay rostered ministers (non-ordained) like AIM’s, lay leaders like church council members, and lay members as in church volunteers.
If we are looking for other interesting words and titles in the ELCA, in this context; the word “rostered” is very confusing to church members and others alike. The title Associate in Ministry is almost always confused with Associate Pastor. I can’t tell you how many times church members have introduced me to their friends and family as “my pastor or our associate pastor”. It is not always appropriate timing to get into a conversation with folks about “word and service” and “word and sacrament”. Sometimes when I have had the opportunity to explain in greater detail, I have been met with blank stares…(huh? what’s a sacrament?)Oh the times, they are a changin’.
Thanks for opening this discussion, David. I am in the process of writing stories to send to our congregations with the yearly ask for mission support. I am working so hard to remove insider language and I am struggling greatly. Even using the term “ministries” had my husband asking what defines a ministry?
I have to point out I am another of the “lay rosters,” diaconal minister, and I have almost completely stopped using it. It is too hard to explain and in today’s world people care more about how effective my work is, not the club title I have been given.
What about getting back to the core of what “vocation” means? I have no trouble with pastor- it defines a vocation.
Disciple is biblical, but has also been used against people. I still like “people” or “children of God.” It puts everyone on the same level and adds a humbling note if the word “child” is used.