Is the distinction between clergy and laity biblical?

Clergy and Laity. — The division of Christians into clergy and laity took place quite early in the Church. The term "clergy" is from the Greek kleros, and is found in 1 Peter 5:3, where all Christians are included in God's "heritage." The use of the word, however, soon wandered from this, to mean the bishops, presbyters, and deacons, to distinguish these from the laity (from laos, the people). The bishops and presbyters were also called "priests," but here again in scripture, the term applies to all Christians, as in Revelation 1, which clearly teaches the priesthood of all Christians. "In holy orders" is another term applied to the clergy, as if they were more holy than other Christians.

Verse 5, “Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.” There you come to the contrast between what exists today and what existed in the past—here you come to a spiritual house, spiritual stones. The stones of the temple in the past dispensation were hewn from the quarry, were shaped there, and then were brought to the place where they were building the temple, and were put into the building, and the building grew to a holy temple; but it was a material structure, and in it were the sons of Aaron, who officiated as priests; but when you come to the present house of God, the present temple, it is the spiritual house, and the stones and the priests are the same thing—the stones are the priests, and the priests are the stones, they are all who have tasted that the Lord is gracious and have come to Him, the Living Stone. We are built together for an habitation of God through the Spirit; we are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, and we grow to an holy temple in the Lord. We are the stones in that vast building; but we are also the priests; the temple is composed of believers, but the priests are believers. Peter says to these newborn babes, you, believers, are an holy priesthood. Oh, but says one, I thought the priest was not the same as the congregation. Is there not a distinction between clergy and laity? But who has separated them in that way? Peter, inspired by the Holy Ghost, tells us that all believers are priests. Who are you to believe? Do you believe God or man? “You are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.”

There is ample evidence in church history that the system of the clergy, as separate from the laity, sprang up early in the Church. The common priesthood of all believers, as taught in Scripture (1 Peter 2:5,9), was soon set aside, also the presence of the Holy Spirit and His free ministry in the Church, and the unscriptural distinction between clergy and laity fast became a regular thing. Thus the belief so prominent through the centuries that only a certain class, humanly ordained, have the exclusive right to preach and teach and administer the sacraments of baptism and the Lord's supper in the Church.

Let us see now what is the meaning of a clergy. It is, in our day, and has been for many generations, the word which specially marks out a class distinguished from the "laity," and distinguished by being given up to sacred things, and having a place of privilege in connection with them which the laity have not. No doubt in the present day this special place is being more and more infringed on, and for two reasons. One is, that God has been giving light, and, among Protestants at least, Scripture is opposing itself to tradition, - modifying where it does not destroy this. The other is a merely human one - that the day is democratic, and class-privileges are breaking down. But what means this class? It is evident that as thus distinguished from the laity, and privileged beyond them, it is real and open Nicolaitanism, if Scripture does not make good their claim. For then the laity has been subjected to them, and that is the exact meaning of the term. Does Scripture, then, use such terms? It is plain it does not. They are, as regards the New Testament, an invention of later date, although, it may be admitted, as imported really from what is older than the New, - the Judaism with which the Church (as we have seen,) was quickly permeated. But we must see the important principles involved, to see how the Lord has (as He must have) cause to say of the deeds of the Nicolaitanes, "Which I also hate." We too, if we would be in communion with the Lord in this must hate what He hates.

Going full-time into Christian work does not put one into some special category apart from other believers; nor does it necessarily imply that one has greater devotion to Christ, greater gifts, or greater knowledge than other Christians. The Word of God knows nothing of clergy - laity distinctions, nor does it present different standards for Christians doing different things.

Whether a school teacher, a mechanic, an executive, a nurse, or a common worker, every Christian ought to serve the Lord faithfully to his or her full capacity. The call to present our bodies as living sacrifices to God that we might prove His good and acceptable and perfect will (Rom. 12:1-3) goes out to every believer.

All is prophetic, for exactly that which was not to be done is being done in Christendom today, hence many of those who claim to be shepherds of the flock are in reality nothing but hirelings; and often it happens that the hireling for the sake of better financial conditions will exchange "his flock" for another. Furthermore, there is to be no lording over the allotted charge (or over your allotments). The elder who has the oversight of the flock, called to shepherd the flock, minister to the flock as a servant, is not to take a place of superiority or spiritual dignity, claiming authority. This also is done in Christendom with its "Lord Bishops" and other titles of ecclesiastical authority. The word translated in the Authorized Version with "heritage" is in the Greek "kleros," and means an allotment. From this word comes our English "clergy." There is no such thing in the body of Christ as a "clergy" and a "laity."

Another remark it will be well to make, that God guards us here from so sharp a distinction as would favour the ruinous distinction, into which the early church too soon slipped, of clergy and laity. Even the more moderate of those who would apologize for it seek to extract the transition from public to private gifts out of the omission of εἴτε ("whether" or "or"). But this is wholly fanciful; for the Holy Spirit has taken care to render such a scheme untenable by placing the most public gift possible, the ruler or leader (ὁ προι>στάμενος) between "him that bestows" and "him that shows mercy," all three being found after the omission supposed to mark the private gifts. The desire to avoid the force of this has led men into arbitrary meanings of ὁ πρ. as merely presiding over one's own household, which really demands that sphere to be defined as in 1 Timothy 3:4-5, 12; or a patron of strangers as in Romans 16:2, which however is a different word. But 1 Thessalonians 5:12 (not to speak of 1 Timothy 5:17) clearly shows the true meaning where it occurs absolutely.

It should be observed, as a consideration of the greatest moment, that the apostle does not specify a particular gift as requisite for these local charges. Scripture takes marked care to guard from that dangerous confusion, which was soon to characterise Christendom, and to form the separation of clergy from laity, which is in fact a return to Judaism, and a denial in both principle and practice of the distinctive fulness of privilege for the church. It is not that a gift and a charge might not be combined in the same individual; but they are in themselves, and for most who have but one or the other, altogether different. The gift was one given by Christ to the church and from the greatest to the least, apart from all intervention of man. This can no more cease to be than Christ can abnegate His grace and living functions as the Head of the body. The charge of "elders" or "bishops" required not only fitness but also choice or appointment by competent authority defined by scripture.

But here the question may be raised — What is a sect? To answer this we must go back to first principles, and inquire what is the cause of the divisions out of which sects have arisen. The cause is, as we have seen, insubjection to the Word of God. Only by absolute obedience to this standard, only by the disallowance of everything not enjoined in this volume, could sectarianism have been prevented and unity maintained. Everything, therefore, is a sect which will not stand this test. It has in its nature the fatal root out of which the sectarian poison is distilled. Tried by this standard, both the Church of Rome and all the national Churches are sects, for where do we find in the Word of God any person exercising authority like that of the Pope, any order of ecclesiastics like that of the cardinals, any form of episcopal government like that either of Rome or England? Where do we see the state, the world, appointing ministers, laying down forms of worship, or deciding points of doctrine? Coming, then, to the various dissenting denominations, we find, for the most part, their zealous assertion of the right to think and act as they like, to form constitutions according to their own thoughts, and to break into separate communities as best suits their own inclinations and convenience. Thus their very starting point is in direct antagonism with God's Word, which condemns sects; and is an express assertion of man's right to bring in his own thoughts and his own wisdom to supplement the Spirit's teaching. Nor, in coming to details, do we find more subjection. Where is the scriptural authority for deciding by conferences or synods in what places preachers shall exercise their gift? Where the warrant for the election of ministers by popular assemblies? Where do we find in the Word the human distinction between clergy and laity? Where the existence of single officers in the local assembly, to whom the exercise of gift is restricted? Where does Scripture speak of official persons administering the sacraments? Where does it sanction the thrusting of the Lord's Supper aside as the object of assembling together, and converting it into a monthly or quarterly celebration? Where the entire throwing away of both the Lord's Supper and baptism as symbols which believers are not now called upon to use?

[*The word Lay is used here, not as allowing the propriety of the distinction between Clergy and Laity, which is not recognised in the New Testament, but only as to the fact.]