The two words kleros (clergy) and laos (laity) appear in the New Testament, but, strange to say, they denote the same people, not different peoples. Every clergyman is a layman and every layman is a clergyman. Bishop J. B. Lightfoot of Durham, as long ago as 1878, saw this quite clearly when he wrote, "The only priests under the Gospel designated as such in the New Testament, are the saints, the members of the Christian brotherhood."¹ Since that time all New Testament scholars have known it. This does not mean that in the New Testament church there was no distinction between ordained men and women and ordinary members, but all were called to be God's people (laity) and all were called to be God's clergy. With regard to laos (laity) the thing is clear in text after text. We may take as a few samples II Cor., 6:16, "What agreement has the temple of God with idols? For we are the temple of the living God; as God said: 'I will live in them and move among them, and I shall be their God and they shall be my people (laos)." This Christian 'called out' group is referred to as God's special or 'peculiar' people, "who gave himself to redeem us from all iniquity and purify for himself a people of his own who are zealous for good deeds."² This same truth is declared in even higher-sounding terms in 1 Peter, 2:9, "And ye are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God's own people (laity), that you may declare the wonderful deeds of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light."³ Certainly the 'people of God' or 'God's laity' in the New Testament are expressions which include the whole [17] Christian family, and certainly the 'priests of God' (his clergy), as Lightfoot declared long ago, include all church members. This is a point we must get clear when we read the New Testament. The same point must be clear when we read the word 'ministry' or 'minister.' All were called to be 'ministers,' that is, into the Christian 'ministry.' It was not something which applied only to apostles, bishops, presbyters, pastors, prophets, evangelists or even deacons, though it is the Greek word diakonos from which our technical word 'deacon' springs. I think it is true that the word diakonos and the word diakonia (ministry) are both used in the New Testament in a general sense and already in a technical sense to refer to an office in the church. In the later Pauline writings as well as in sub-Pauline literature they already often have a restricted meaning, but elsewhere the words do not refer to any special class, but to all Christians. Every Christian is called to serve Christ. He is in the ministry. Very often the words refer to service in general as in II Cor. 4:1, "Therefore, being engaged in this service by the mercy of God, we do not lose heart." God has given all Christians to the ministry of reconciliation.⁴ "The ordinary member believed that he was called to the ministry quite as literally as was the Apostle, for just as there is one Lord, one faith, and one baptism, there is one hope of your calling."⁵ Even as late as the beginning of the third century when 'clergy' and 'laity' had been separated, Tertullian can say, "where three are gathered together, there is the church, even though they be laymen."⁶

      In our day, Dr. Elton Trueblood thinks we have come to our wrong reading of the New Testament through our confusing of the words 'pastor' and 'minister.' "It is a mark of our present failure even to understand the New Testament conception, that we ordinarily use the words 'pastor' and 'minister' synonymously or interchangeably." I am not arguing that in the New Testament there was nothing corresponding to what we call the 'professional ministry.' There was, though I think they would have preferred to call [18] it 'vocational' rather than 'professional.' It was a 'calling' like other 'callings,' but it was not only the Apostles and pastors who were in the ministerial calling. All Christians were called to the ministry, whether they were tent-makers or slaves. Gibbon in his Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire regretted that "it became the most sacred duty of a new convert to diffuse among his friends and relations the inestimable blessings which he had received."⁷ The Acts of the Apostles records that those of Jerusalem who were scattered because of persecution on Stephen's death, "traveled as far as Phoenecia and Cyprus and Antioch speaking the word."⁸ This and later persecutions were the very beginning of the great missionary movement of the church which eventually carried Christianity into Europe. But this movement did not depend alone on Paul and Barnabas. You may remember that at Troas Paul had a vision of a man of Europe beckoning him and saying, "Come over and help us." He and his companions went and found on European soil a women's meeting for prayer. Paul preached and Lydia was converted in Philippi, an important city of the place and a Roman colonia. If we suppose that Lydia and her household were just baptized and joined the church, and did not think of themselves as sealed and dedicated to the ministry of the Gospel, our understanding of Primitive Christianity is very wrong. They did not simply join the throng of 'sermon listeners' as many do today. They voiced their own testimony to the amazing Gospel which had set them free.

      It may surprise readers to learn that the word 'vocation' is found only once in the Authorized Version of the New Testament (1611).⁹ In the R.S.V. it is found not at all. The passage in the R.S.V. will give us the clue as to why this is. It reads, "I, therefore, a prisoner of the Lord, beg you to lead a life worthy of the calling to which you have been called." The word 'calling' replaces 'vocation' in the older version. It was so originally changed in the English Revised Version of 1881. It is the same word in Greek which elsewhere in the Authorized Version is translated 'calling' and only in Ephesians IV, 1 as 'vocation.' The Revisers of 1881 were simply restoring in Ephesians IV, 1 the translation of the Greek word klesis employed elsewhere and bringing it in line with the translation of the verbal form of the noun. This was followed by the R.S.V. The New [19] Testament is full of expressions referring to 'calling,' 'being called,' 'to be called' and they always refer to all Christians and not to what we style 'ministers.' All Christians are ministers, 'called' to a ministry.

      The Greek word kleros, from which the word 'clergy' is derived, occurs in the New Testament. It is first applied to the 'lot' which was cast by the Roman soldiers over the vesture of our Lord.¹⁰ It is next applied to the 'lot' which Judas Iscariot took in taking his own life and to the 'lot' cast by the Apostles in replacing him by electing Matthias.¹¹ We next meet it in Peter's condemnation of Simon Magus the sorcerer: "You have neither part nor lot in this matter, for your heart is not right before God."¹² We find it next in Acts 26:18, in St. Paul's defense before King Agrippa. St. Paul, explaining his conversion to the new sect, declares that on the Damascus road he heard our Lord saying to him, "to whom (the Gentiles) I send you to open their eyes, that they may turn from darkness to light, from Satan to God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins and a place consecrated by faith in me."¹³ It is clear here that all Gentile Christians, at least, are God's 'clergy' or 'inheritance,' not just a special class of Gentiles. This meaning is maintained in the only two other uses in the New Testament: "giving thanks to the Father, who has qualified us to share in the inheritance of the saints in light."¹⁴ In the other passage the elders (presbyteroi) are exhorted in the exercise of their office, to act, "not as domineering over those in your charge, but (as) being examples to the flock."¹⁵ Here it is clear that we have two things, the official clergy (ministers, shepherds, presbyters or pastors) and the flock or 'clergy' over whom they were given charge. As the letter is written to Jewish Christians, it is clear that the whole Christian brotherhood, both Jews and Gentiles, had come to be identified as the 'flock' or 'clergy' of God. So we can see that all Christians are God's laity (laos) and all are God's clergy (kleros). Any distinction we make between 'clergy' and 'laity' cannot clear the laity from being ministers of the Gospel nor from being responsible of being God's 'clergy.' [20]

      All this certainly means that in the New Testament church the position of the 'clergy' and 'laity' was practically topsy-turvy in relation to what it is today. The most mature statement anywhere in the New Testament concerning the 'ministry' is that in Ephesians 4. After stating the various grades of what we might speak of as the 'official ministry,' apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers, the writer goes on to describe their task as being "for the equipment of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for building up the body of Christ."¹⁶ The comma after 'saints' is not in the Greek text and I would contend that it ought not to be there at all. Then the official ministers' chief job is to equip the saints for the work of the ministry.¹⁷ Try and think how topsy-turvy this is as compared with our conception today! This hardly enters into our conception of what today we think of as the chief task of the official clergy. If it is true as Daniel Day Williams says, and I think it is true that

Protestantism came into being through a new understanding of what it means to live as a Christian in the world. The Reformers saw that the basis of moral responsibility and decision of the Christian does not lie in the elaboration of principles, but in the concrete response of free men to the call of God, which is a call to action and service. That is our vocation. It was this doctrine with which the Reformers pried Christian ethics loose from the dominion of the church. It was this by which they broke the distinction between the religious and secular orders. It was here they discovered a foundation for ethics which transcends all legalistic systems."¹⁸

If this is true, then as children of the Reformation, we inherit a terrible responsibility. This responsibility, as it affects those who are to dedicate their lives to the official ministry, is dealt with by Professor Troxel in his address on "Competent Christian Leadership" at your 89th Commencement. It so covers the point I am wishing to make that I will quote at length from it.

The one thing above all else that will meet the consequences which confront us today is for the church membership to have a moral conscience and an unselfish intent. This goal, no Christian leader [21] can neglect. It is his prime duty and privilege to undertake this supreme task. May I make so bold as to say, that it has been a great blunder to lead men to suppose that salvation can be effected by some magic rite or ceremony, or mere profession of belief, as important as these things are. There is too much danger in overstressing the formal features of church life lest people congratulate themselves and feel smug with their piety and charity. But salvation, let it be understood, is not so lightly attained, or retained. Salvation implies an attainment of character, a purification of will, which normally requires earnest effort and long perseverance in well-doing. No one is ever enough saved. Eternal vigilance is the price of salvation as it is of liberty. It is rather facetious for a church to point to the number of communicants, or to a large attendance on special days, or to the amount of money raised for worthy causes as a measure of its life. The only ultimate test of its success is: What kind of people is it making out of them? Let there be no mistake about it; the task of the church is not merely to get members, it is to Christianize them, to show them the Christ-like way to live and lead in the moral and religious affairs of our needy time.¹⁹

      There is no doubt that Christians ought to be different men and women from other men and women, different from what they were before they themselves became Christians. They have taken on vows to Christ as the Lord of their lives, Christ who is the Lord of all life. Listen to St. Paul writing to Christians who are members of the church in Rome:

What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin that grace may abound? By no means. How can we who died to sin still live in it? Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death; so that as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life.²⁰

The New Testament constantly speaks of Christians as new creatures which means what it says, Christian life in this world. We cannot, as Christians, allow our lives to slip into the humdrum life of the world. Christians must be adventurers for Christ. We are often confused by an 'either-or' philosophy. It is not that Christ has redeemed the world and we have nothing to do. His [22] redemption, though finished, is still going on and must go on through His Body, the church; let us say it humbly, through us. It is not blasphemous to say that we, too, are redeeming the world, if we understand that our call is to be with the Christ. That is what being a member of his church means. We redeem the world or send it to damnation through the lives we live in the world. We have a greater potency, and therefore a greater responsibility than non-Christians. We are actually called to be 'partakers with Christ.'²¹ The New Testament is full of this idea, but to be a 'partaker with Christ' means that he is here with us, and he is here through the Holy Spirit. To have the Holy Spirit is to have Christ. As Christ, our daily companion, he disciplines us to holiness. As Christians, we ought to be a strange new people with a strange new courage and strength. And yet, look at our situation in which it is hard to distinguish a Christian from a non-Christian except perhaps on Sundays. What is more important is that he or she should be as equally distinguishable on Mondays. A religion which merely haunts churches, shrines and sanctuaries is a poor imitation of the religion Christ brought.

      "If with Christ you died to the elemental spirits of the universe, why do you live as if you still belonged to the world?"²² We have, I am afraid, turned all this into spiritual phantasmagoria, a kind of quackery. Such things, including baptism, as we practice it as a legal ordinance, "have the appearance of wisdom in promoting rigor of devotion and self-abasement and severity to the body, but they are of no value in checking indulgence of the flesh."²³ What is needed is 'to check the indulgence of the flesh' which includes greed and covetousness as a chief ingredient. We certainly need to live new lives, totally different from our former lives. How as human beings shall we do this? The only way is through the arrhabon, the earnest. We need to take notice, not only of Romans 6, but of Romans 7 and 8, of what is said of the Holy Spirit, which in the New Testament is Jesus' 'other-self.' He has gone away, but is now more present than he was in the days of his flesh. This is what Dr. C. H. Dodd has called 'realized eschatology' but what I would prefer to call 'proleptic eschatology.' Here and now in this life we have a foretaste of the life to come, we have 'spiritual [23] libations' of the hereafter. We are not without power to transform our lives here and now, though the power is from God. It was by "one Spirit that we were all baptized into one Body."²⁴ We ought to be Spirit-filled people and by that Spirit enabled to do new works and live new lives and so transform the world.

      Does it ever strike you that God might have performed his task in some other way, as soon as people were committed to Christ? He might have moved them from this world to the hereafter and left the world to its own resources, to go to the Devil. There is an echo of this longing wistfully expressed in our Lord's High Priestly Prayer: "I do not pray that thou shouldst take them out of the world, but that thou shouldst keep them from the evil one.²⁵ This world is not an easy place for Christians to live in and Jesus never promised peace and ease to his followers: "In this world you have tribulation; but be of good cheer, I have overcome the world."²⁶ That overcoming of the world is our task, as it was his. It takes courage to live a Christian life in this world.

      Dr. Elton Trueblood spends part of his great book on showing that lay-religion is often much more effective than that of official religion, that of the clergy.²⁷ This is a hard pill for professional men to swallow, but I am afraid we shall have to attempt it. A parson's words are often discredited because they are what he is supposed to say. Not so with the comment of a layman. Similar words come as a surprise. The cynical layman may sometimes say of the clergyman, "That is what he is paid for saying," forgetting that it is mostly laymen that pay him! This, of course, is unfair, but from the lay point of view it has an element of truth, enough to have a sting. Some of the church's condemnation of social and political practices have been discredited in this way by saying, "It is not the business of the church (meaning the clerics) to talk about politics and economics. Let them deal with spiritual matters, stick to their own job." But these things are their job. The word 'spiritual' is being prostituted. These things were even said by politicians and economists to Archbishop William Temple and they will be said of lesser people. But when a consecrated layman says these things or [24] things like them, the same jibe loses its sting. The Buffalo Conference was a good illustration as was the Malvern Conference in England. A fine example of this point was provided at the World Council of Churches at Evanston when Mr. J. Irving Miller addressed the accredited visitors on 'Laymen Discover Their Vocation.'²⁸ I had heard Mr. Miller at a Butler convocation and also speaking to seminary students in chapel and I knew that we were in for some sound common sense, scholarly and Christian talk when he was scheduled at Evanston. It was all the more effective because the speaker was a churchman and a layman. If only his like could be multiplied we should have that revolution of which I have spoken. 'Take heed to your calling' needs to be heard, not only by the clergy, but by the laity. What I am pleading for is not just Christian clergy (though that might do something!) but Christian teachers, doctors, lawyers, scientists, politicians, statesmen, artists, actors, playwrights, sculptors, architects, builders, professors, nurses, economists, editors, journalists, home-builders, craftsmen of all kinds; in fact Christian laymen and laywomen. And in this calling there is no room for snobbery of any kind, especially the snobbery of the pedant. We must recover a fresh sense of the dignity of labor and the integrity of labor. [25]

[CTR 17-25]