“Muggle” is a term from the Harry Potter book series by J.K. Rowling and refers to a person without magical ability and who was not born into the magical world.
Originally posted Oct. 8, 2012, at … in the Meantime. Republished with permission of the author.
Can we just banish the term “layperson”?
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 “layperson” 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. OK, fine. Now tell me what “layperson” 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 ‘layperson’ 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 ‘layperson’ 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 pastoral 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!
Find a link to David Lose’s blog … in the Meantime at Lutheran Blogs.
You might also want to read:
Doing church differently
We’ve always done it this way
Serving others with our own hands
The Priesthood of All Believers. Priest, Prophet, King. Lose asks for a term for "everyday Christian." The Faithful. The Clergy. Ordinary muggles and magical wizards.
Lose suggests we "eliminate... the distinctions." (Does he want to eliminate the ordained clergy?) Then the hocus pocus and the magic will be eliminated. Without the Clergy (who Lose calls "resident experts" -- he doesn't mention the Sacrament), Aunt Tillie could consecrate a Gluten-free rice cracker at her kitchen table.
Then the Church could finally emerge into a communal agency for the betterment of humanity.
I think Professor Lose is talking about removing the stigma of "amateur" from "Lay" people who work hard and contribute much to their church. He is by no means calling for the abolition of the clergy. He is only asking that the pastor should be given more time to be more pastoral in guiding God's children.
“why in the world we don’t have all Christians working at interpreting Scripture”
I think the professor is on to something. What is worse; having clergy interpret your Bible for you and possibly getting it wrong, or you just read the Bible for yourself and possibly get the same out come? “Every day Christians” will read a plain spoken Bible verse, with their very own eyes, that seemingly would need no interpretation what so ever; yet half of the clergy will tell them that “Don’t believe your lying eyes, that part of the Bible was not inspired by the Holy spirit” (only certain parts are of God, and certain parts are from flawed men; and only the clergy can tell you which is which).
I'm fine with the word "laity" or "laypeople". It means 'not clergy'. While I'm all for getting the laity involved and doing theology, I think it's the lack of theological education on the clergy end that is what makes this distinction harder to notice these days. Most pastors don't know how to use the Augsburg Confession or the Formula of Concord on even a semi-regular basis, despite the fact that these documents directly speak to issues of today.
For example...what's the last post here on LivingLutheran that even mentioned the AC or FC?
Are all clergy in 100% lock step with Augsburg Confession or the Formula of Concord, or do they pick and choose particular aspects for their liking like many do the Bible? I am curious as to whether the Augsburg Confession or the Formula of Concord rise to the level of scripture and if so, are they open to interpretation?
Davey,
To answer your first question: no. Not by a long shot. In fact, if clergy did, there would have been no decision 2009 (AC XXVIII). And as to number two: no. The AC and Formula of Concord do not achieve that level and are more open to interpretation.
davey,
There are debates about what the AC and FC mean. "Third Use of the Law" is one of the fastest ways to get such a debate going, especially if there's a mix of LCMS and ELCA theologians. There's always going to be debate about what religious documents mean; my point is that very few people even bother to use these powerful documents and how they propose to treat Scripture and what statements they make about the Gospel.
TheHawg,
I don't understand your statement about there being no decision 2009. I presume you are referring to ordination of otherwise qualified candidates who are in PALM same-gender relationships. If so, I disagree on two grounds. One is that AC28 specifically makes room for such a decision when it claims, against Scripture, that abstinence from blood is no sin (28:65), so if clergy were on board with that, they'd make the decision, though perhaps in 1989 instead of 2009. Second is that there are those who do use the AC and fall on both sides of that decision. Ed Schroeder and the late Bob Bertram both from Seminex are two examples.
Peter,
Section 55 of AC XXVIII speaks to directives that kept order in the early Church, specifically women who have their heads covered. Certainly one does not need to have one's conscience burdened by breaking such a command; however, it clearly sates that if doing so offends another, the order should be kept "for the sake of love and tranquility." If we had adhered to this teaching of the AC, we would not have tried to vote to change church policy for there were more than a few offended by the breaking of such instructions instituted for such order.
If and when the day came when no offense was received by the breaking of such order, the change could have been made without struggle or divisiveness in the church. Again, if we would have followed AC XXVIII there would have been no vote in 2009.
Peter,
Yes I agree with that and would add that I think we should put much more weight on the simplest, or the plainest reading of all of these texts. To TheHawg's point, if we were to let the AC, or the Bible for that matter, speak on their own, we might find ourselves in error. Interpretation can be a double edge sword because with it comes motive.
TheHawg,
You answered correctly and quickly connected the very dots I was thinking of….brilliant!
TheHawg,
Offense is insufficient reason, partially because it goes both ways, and partially because 'offense' was not reason to deny proclamation of the Gospel. (and think of how much offense the Confutors took at the AC!) In that offense goes both ways, I (and many others) find it offensive ordination was denied to otherwise qualified candidates in same-gender relationships. If offense is your criterion, it then requires those opposed to get on board with ordination. To sharpen things further, the offense of denying those in same-gender relationships the recognition of ordination/legitimacy of the relationships in general is part of what leads a lot people away from church (any church) and faith in the first place. Those offended by same-gender relationships/ordination of those in them may leave the ELCA, but they don't cease being Christian or even going to church. If offense is our criterion, it seems obvious which decision burdens consciences more.
Also, if you keep reading in AC28 past v55, you'll find that v64, 67, 69, 70, 72, 74, and 75-78 all do not support avoiding a decision for the sake of offense. Especially the ending to AC28: "this one thing is asked, namely, that [bishops] allow the Gospel to be purely taught, and that they relax some few observances which cannot be kept without sin. But if they make no concession, it is for them to see how they shall give account to God for furnishing, by their obstinacy, a cause for schism."
If you look at the language of the Social Statement, you'll find this is what the CWA in fact did... offer a concession.
davey,
You can't read anything without interpreting. The "simplest" or "plainest" reading depends on what motive (and education) you have. The OT illustrates this best of all, like the Isaiah readings we're having about now (suffering servant). In order to get the "simplest" reading, you need to understand what the author was writing about, and in order to understand that, you need to know when the document was written and in what culture the document was written. That's no longer simple, but it's the plainest. Also, the simplest or plainest reading has nothing to do with Jesus, since there is no mention of Him in the texts andn the author was probably more concerned with speaking to his culture than to people living on a continent he didn't know existed. That we claim these texts speak of Jesus at all is an interpretation we make and is in no way 'plain' or 'simple' on its own.
There are also places in Scripture where the 'simplest' or 'plainest' explanation is that Scripture is wrong. For example, Quirinius wasn't governor of Syria until 6 AD, yet Herod the Great died in 3 BC. Was Jesus born twice, or did either Luke or Matthew get the date of Jesus' birth wrong? The plainest and simplest explanation is that one of the Gospel writers got the dates wrong (or deliberately chose wrong dates for literary reasons). So, by taking the plainest or simplest reading, we've come to the conclusion that Scripture can be wrong. If it can be wrong about facts, why can't it be wrong about morals, too? We're now back at interpretation. We can't escape it!
What we need is the right interpretation, or method by which to interpret Scripture. That's where the AC comes in. This method is proposed in AC4 and its defense: to be Christian, something must proclaim Christ's death and resurrection alone and only for the forgiveness of sins, and the benefits of Christ's death and resurrection proclaimed such that devout consciences are comforted.
Yes, Peter, you are correct that offense goes both ways, but the AC was pretty clear on what offenses needed to be addressed and what traditions were put under the microscope. The offenses under question were "unjust burdens which were new and have been received contrary to the custom of the Church Catholic."
The restrictions regarding PALM in committed-life-long relationships were neither new nor contrary to the custom of the Church Catholic and as such fell within the realm of lines 55 and following. By doing what we did as a denomination, we did not follow our instructional documents for the sake of "love and tranquility" and instead pursued a path which would directly lead to schism. And I am well aware the Reformers did too; however, their schism revolved, not around traditions and ordinances of the Church, but around the chief article of faith.
If, indeed, we would have followed our documents, our bishops could have made exceptions (some I believe did) by allowing PALM to continue to preach and teach in congregations without seeking discipline upon them. However, they did not--again.
I assert once again, that if we would have followed the AC, there would have been no decision 2009, and the process toward such matters could have continued toward resolution without schism.
Unfortunately, that did not happen, and now, you are correct in asserting that those now who were opposed should "get onboard" with the decision. This is why yours truly has not left the ELCA. The chief article isn't in dispute. It is my hope that the church can move forward with a resolve to proclaim the gospel. It will be quite interesting to see if "lots of people" are now going to cease being offended at our denomination and begin regular church worship and attendance because of what has been decided. If watching our sister denomination who has led the way is any indication...
TheHawg,
How powerful is this doctrine of offence? If a simple majority decides that a certain burden of some church doctrine is so heavy that the offence of the few is outweighed; are there any protections for the peace of the few? Are there any absolute boundaries as for what can be called a burden? Are there any absolute boundaries as for what can be considered an offence? The majority obviously decides. Where are the safeguards to heresy, or is it OK to go down that road too?
Davey,
Tough questions, and I'm not sure I have satisfactory answers to them. Here are my, perhaps not so academic, thoughts:
Placing the AC into its historical context, I believe the reformers knew they had opened up a can of worms when it came to their assertion of sola scriptura. I believe they knew they had opened themselves to immense criticism by the Church of Rome. The Roman Catholic scholars could easily say, "You folks claim scripture alone, yet, you do not follow its ordinances (eating blood, women not wearing head coverings, etc.) and instead follow Church tradition. You yourselves elevate tradition over scripture."
In response, in my investigative perspective, they penned AC XXVIII. It dealt with such matters. Nearly everyone agreed one's conscience shouldn't be burdened with the prohibitions of eating blood. Likewise with women appearing without covering their heads. Their reasoning, again as I read things, led them to basically say, "When the vast majority (perhaps 95-99%)agree that one shouldn't have one's conscience burdened by such commands, one need not follow them." It's more than a majority rules--it's more of a rule by consensus.
Now, the obvious hole in the argument is exactly what you raise: are there any absolute boundaries?
First, I would direct you to Paul's teaching in 1 Corinthians who says, "All things are lawful, but not all things are beneficial." According to the doctrine of grace, all things are indeed lawful because the law is no longer our disciplinarian. Yet, not all things are beneficial. There are things which should not be done. Heresy would be among those things that definitely isn't beneficial, and I can't imagine a church which would end up with a vast majority declaring the 10 Commandments or other such teachings null and void or that consciences should not be burdened with them.
I know this is an imperfect answer and deserves more time and space, but this is a blog response and, frankly, I'm a bit fatigued as this is my "Friday." Perhaps after my couple of days off my mind will be in a better frame to perhaps offer a better answer.
Thank you, TheHawg,
for you shooting from the hip on this answer. You need not trouble yourself with the intricate details of an extra-Biblical doctrine (AC or FC). I think the readers can read the simple….plain…text of your comments on their own.
What about Paul's condemnation of the son in a relationship with the father's wife, and the threat to the church's well being? This seems to be a perfect case of where we have a church that is a fan of the wife/son relationship at the expense of the father; not the church. I suppose the congregation liked the woman in the relationship more than they did the father. Yet Paul chose the unity of the church (or the one grievous father) in spite of the church. Was this done for reasons of unity of the church? It seems like Paul could have ran the father of off and the church would have been OK. But Paul stood on Biblical principle rather than church unity. Am I off base here?
TheHawg,
I disagree with your analysis of the Reformation and sola scriptura. Sola Scriptura does not stand on its own, but in the context of sola fide. AC4 is in place to prevent exactly that can of worms you fear-- it's not about the Law, but about the Gospel and properly dividing the texts. They point to those laws as examples of how law-- even Law from Scripture--is mutable in its manifestation in a given culture/time.
AC28 focuses on this division, which the Confutators seem to miss entirely. The Reformers claim that the laws are mutable... not only when there's consensus, but when there is disagreement. The laws that are "unjust burdens which were new and have been received contrary to the custom of the Church Catholic" are not limited to innovations done in the last 100 years prior to Reformation. The ban on the marriage of priests, for example, was a 500 year old tradition they were doing away with.
Allowing ordination of those in PALM same-gender relationships did not force schism. Those who didn't like the decision choosing to leave was the schism.
I see the 2009 decision as a Gospel-based decision, though, which is why it was long overdue. It was a question of 'do we allow people called by God to proclaim the Gospel?'. Or more nuanced, do we trust those in PALM same-gender relationships to be Christ-trusters?
Also, speaking of the 10 Commandments, Luther himself writes about when we will write new Decalogues instead of the old one. The Law is great, but it does not hold where the Gospel has sway.
Peter,
You are correct in assessing that sola scriptura does not stand on its own but is flanked by both and sola gratia. AC IV is important in this discussion, but it also must be read in light of AC XX on good works.
"Furthermore, it is taught on our part that it is necessary to do good works, not that we should trust to merit grace by them, but because it is the will of God."
And how do we know the will of God? What teaches us the will of God? You know very well the answer to that questions as do I.
And this does lead us to deal with part of your post--deciding when those laws are mutable, and the AC is quite clear when those laws should and can be tackled. I articulated that earlier.
I think your apologetics are a little off based when it comes to addressing "new" teachings, for I think you fail to recognize a much different concept of time with the Reformers. 500 years would still be considered quite new when it came to the abolition of marriage for priests. It is our modern society which thinks of newness in such small lengths of time.
And as to regard to schism, I never use the word "forced." I said it led to. If anyone believed schism would not occur--that people would not leave the church--that one would have had to be blind. The actions taken in 2009 directly led to schism, and thus both parties are culpable in what happened--especially since AC XXVIII was not followed.
Peter,
“Those who didn't like the decision choosing to leave was the schism.”?
This statement is confusing. The folks that left are no more “the schism” than the ones who stayed. There are two groups both involved a schism.
How can it be said that 559 members voting for PALM are less schismatic than the 451 that voted against? Why is it only the folks who leave are the schism? What if everybody but the Bishop left; would the church be the schism or the Bishop?
The whole process was schismatic from the get go with an extreme probability of an outright schism to unfold. And it did. The 2009 CWA knew for a certainty that moving forward with this would cause consternation. And it did. The chance of a schism the size that we experienced, had the votes failed, were negligible. Before 2009 there were (and still are) opposition groups within the ELCA that were, and are, dismayed at the direction the church was heading, but no one was talking schism. For many 2009 CWA votes were just a “bridge too far” for them. Some, even while staying, have given up on supporting the church body and even their local synods, and have concentrated their support to their local congregations. They feel they have nowhere else to go and they don’t think that 2009 will have an effect on their congregation. They are still involved in the schism.
Davey,
Just an FYI, I am not ignoring your question. I believe the answer to that question is found in my last response to Peter--particularly the part about knowing God's will.
No worries TheHawg,
I did glean much from your last comment. Thanks