It struck me at the oddest of times yesterday morning that the clergy-laity system (with which I quarrel, and which exists in nearly all churches with which I’ve had any connection whatsoever) has at least one redeeming quality. “Laity,” I supposed, may be derived from the Greek latreuo and/or leitourgeia, which are probably related [...]
Archive for the 'Clergy-Laity system' Category
Laity
September 29, 2009On bill-paying (follow-up)
September 28, 2009Not at all suggesting that all congregational offerings, or all Christians’ contributions, fall into this category, I firmly resist thoughtless, obligatory, perfunctory, blind giving to a plate (or a box).
Church Titles
September 4, 2009I heard a pretty good sermon on Wednesday that had to do with differences between churches, structurally speaking. This sermon tied things to scripture but pointed up that scriptural patterns aren’t always clear; thus, the differences that result in human workings-out of things, in various eras.
Despite the feeling of many that Christians need to [...]
And yet another
August 22, 2009Because he is a de facto authority, he was the one asked.
Ministry (2)
August 15, 2009Concepts of hierarachy and status can lead to direct conflict with ideals of Christian work and service.
Ministry (1)
August 14, 2009For many “ministry” leaders, a real status boost occurs when it’s decided–either by someone within (more likely) or without–that they’re going plural.
Roles (3): etymological musing
July 24, 2009If paid ministers would see themselves more as servants, perhaps we would have fewer displays of power in churches.
Roles (2): *Christ* receiveth sinful men
July 23, 2009The preacher, if there is one, speaks the words that lead to the response. The shepherd is the one who, by definition, cares for the sheep.
Roles–a personal odyssey
July 22, 2009I learned early on that the most spiritually significant congregational “office,” if one called it that, was that of elder. And I aspired to be one.
Preacher-centrism
July 12, 2009We used to say “preacheritis,” but I don’t think that was quite right, grammatically speaking.
The subject was, and is, *centering on a human.*