A searchable, downloadable PDF of the original article appears below. David Mills is the interim administrator at Covenant Community, the Presbyterian Leadership College at Duncan, B.C.
In these days of talk about “lay education”, one is tempted to ask the question why? Should we be talking about educating the whole church? If so, how are we to educate them? We need to consider seriously the consequences of embarking on more effective and wide-spread lay education.
1. Workers. Are we aiming to train more volunteer helpers? Are we training them so they will assist in the running of church programs, such as Sunday School, Youth Groups, Bible Studies etc. under the directions of the minister?
If this is the aim then we are continuing the present status quo. So far in our recent church history it doesn’t appear to be working. We see declining congregations, with an ever-rising average age. We can convince ourselves that a few cosmetic changes will effect a renewal. We haven’t changed anything!
If all we are doing is finding ourselves another group of workers for the cause, then this new group of workers only reinforces any feeling of ineffectiveness of the ordinary member of the congregation. After all he has less to offer because he hasn’t been “trained.” We haven’t changed the current understanding and parameters of ministry, but instead will have created another level of professionalism.
2. Informed Members. Are we trying to educate laypeople with more knowledge? Are we giving them an opportunity to learn about their faith for their own interest and development? This would make them better educated church members in a general sense.
If we choose this option then we may begin to have some impact on the life and structures of the church. But we will only have dealt with the cerebral aspects of faith and neglected much of the emotional, psychological and spiritual needs of the people of God. One of the earliest comments about the nature of the church is found in Acts where the description of Peter and John was “Now as they observed the confidence of Peter and John and understood that they were uneducated and untrained men, they were marveling, and began to recognise them as having been with Jesus” (Acts 4:13).
Much of our current religious practice is based on personal piety. This focuses on a personal relationship with God, rather than involvement with other believers. There is no doubt that personal piety is important but not at the cost of shared ministry and togetherness. Our culture has tended to emphasize the independence of the individual, and as a result we have seen the personal aspects of our faith as more important than the corporate. The law stated by Jesus is threefold and requires a relationship with my brother or sister as well as with God. We need to learn how to walk with God, rather than only knowing about him.
3. Participants. Are we proposing ministry of the church? Are we providing them with the opportunity to explore and experience in depth the meaning of being a Christian in today’s world by introducing them to what it means in terms of real life relationships? In other words, are we talking about the renewal of the whole by the whole believing group?
To put our choice down here raises the whole question of the position and role of the minister and the expectations of the congregation; and the way in which the whole laos ministers together. In my opinion lay education has to be an all-embracing process. This cannot be learned in a purely academic situation, but in a situation where there is a recognition of our mutual interdependence. In our theological understanding we recognise that the laos is the ministry, but our practice doesn’t always reflect this. We not only set the minister “apart” when we ordain him, but set him “up”. Shared ministry should be our aim.
To Minister
Ministry in today’s church is patterned by the image of a person who conducts services, preaches sermons, raises money for buildings, baptises people, marries lovers, and buries the dead. The layperson who wishes to take part in ministry is left with the impression that he needs to be ordained or trained in order to minister. Or he needs to be “someone” in the church like a youth leader or Sunday School teacher or elder or whatever, and the focus has switched into office rather than function. He is also led to the impression that the minister is the final arbiter on all the affairs of the church, an impression that many an insecure minister fosters.
The function of ministry is to serve. The motive of that ministry will be to release people into their own sphere of service without any pressure.
I can remember being trained at seminary that it was important to remain “professional” and not get involved with people. It was stated that any involvement would create a feeling of “favouritism.” That teaching failed to address my own emotional needs, and gave rise to defensiveness when my vulnerable areas were approached. Significantly, research lists ministers among those who suffer the greatest stress in their jobs. Too often we have neglected the vast resources of lay participation and interaction by making the minister professional and, to some extent, aloof from the people. We desperately need a greater spirit of flexibility and willingness to change.
The function of ministry is to serve. The motive of that ministry will be to release people into their own sphere of service without any pressure. Its effectiveness will be determined by the extent to which the local church looks to the Holy Spirit for its inspiration. If the church is unaware of the power available, the ministry will suffer as a consequence and people will look to structure and organization for their security. “Many churches do not share the gospel effectively because their communal experience of the gospel is too weak and tasteless to be worth sharing. It does not excite the believer to the point where he wants to witness and (as the believer uncomfortably suspects) it is not all that attractive to the unbeliever. But where Christian fellowship demonstrates the gospel, the believer becomes alive and sinners get curious and want to know what the secret is. So true Christian community (koinoma) becomes both the basis and goal of evangelism” (Howard Snyder, , New Wine, New Wineskins).
Leadership
The role of the minister in the acceptance and development of lay participation is a vital component. If the minister is able to release himself or herself from professionalism and office, there will be room for others to develop and exercise their ministry. The minister’s function is to share himself and his deeper experiences, to foster growth and the ability of others to function within their giftedness.
Arthur, a minister friend of mine in England, was grieving about his situation to me one day with tears. He felt that his gifts were in individual pastor – ing and there was no doubt he was gifted in that direction, but because he was a “minister” he was expected to preach twice every Sunday. He longed for his congregation to see this problem, but they steadfastly refused, giving him no option but sweat drops of blood each week as he struggled with two sermons, eventually to resign his position. That was a tragedy, because there is no rule that says a “minister” has to do the preaching. So too, the congregation has to release the minister to be human in his relationship with the church. Many a minister has been broken by an intractable congregation, as many a church has been split by a dominant minister. And these major breaks are not easily mended.
Within the local congregation the only safeguard that I know is the exercise of plural leadership. In the patterns of renewal throughout the world, the churches that have experienced the most significant growth have something in common. They began by a small group including the minister being willing to share their lives together in a significant way. The minister was not so available to the whole congregation during that period of building, and later didn’t need to be. They became a “priesthood of all believers” and worked together sharing their giftedness. They became vulnerable and accountable to each other in very deep ways, and learnt to develop not only their own gifts but the gifts of others in the congregation without any formal training. They found they had deeper relationships with each other based on serious and costly commitments. They developed more colour in worship, with dance, mime, drama, visual arts and spiritual gifts being discovered. Leadership was shared in very deep and meaningful ways. They found they had a lot to offer to each other, and together they became a vibrant active leadership group in a church. As they shared their lives together openly they became aware of strengths and weaknesses in each other and were able to recognize gifts for ministry and places where back-up was required. They discovered hurts and joys also, and as they dealt with these they became a model and witness to the congregation for shared life and purpose.
Belonging
How is the church addressing the genuine need to “belong” to a caring community? The attraction of the cults has been the close-knit group and the appearance of genuine concern for every member, and the deep sense that everyone is important. Many people are crying out for caring relationships. Some will pay psychotherapists vast sums of money simply to feel heard. Yet they are afraid to get involved; afraid to need anyone close. After all, we are expected to be independent and self-sufficient! Much of the loneliness of today’s world is that people have little sense of belonging, except maybe to a club or group to meet a special need. To belong to a group that will meet all our needs is surely to belong to the Body of Christ, where we will find acceptance, love and a willingness to be vulnerable.
“Our churches are filled with people who outwardly look contented and at peace, but inwardly are crying out for someone to love them . . . just as they are — confused, frustrated, often frightened, guilty and often unable to communicate even with their own families. But the other people in the church look so happy and contended that one seldom has the courage to admit his own deep needs before such a self-sufficient group as the average church meeting seems to be” (William Miller, Why Christians Break Down).
So the key to lay education lies in the recognition and use of the giftedness of the people of God. People will get involved if they feel they belong, and they will feel they belong if they feel accepted for who they are, rather than for what they can do. We need to enrich the people of God in an understanding and experience of being the family of God. This can only be done as people have the desire to build relationships, because it is one thing to begin committed relationships, and quite another to maintain them through thick
and thin. Loving relationships, properly guarded, carefully understood, are where the true witness to the love of Christ really lie.
“How can I participate in a fairer distribution of resources unless I live in a community which makes it possible to consume less? How can I learn accountability unless I live in a community where my acts and their consequences are visible to all? How can I learn to share power unless I live in a community where hierarchy is unnatural? How can I take the risks that right action demands unless I live in a community which gives support? How can I learn the sanctity of each life unless I live in a community where we can be persons, not roles, to one another?” (Parker Palmer, The Promise of Paradox).