I was thinking about the importance of the laymen in a church.
There are, of course, some great advantages to having dedicated personnel and leaders of a church who can devote a lot of their time to studying the word and breaking things down into digestible pieces for the rest of us on a Sunday. But there are also some disadvantages to being that person. They begin to lose touch with what the rest of us deal with.
I read a story, don't remember where from (I think a text book from college) that sort of illustrates the point. The author of the book had just finished preaching and as he stood by the door with people streaming by to say thanks, one person stopped in front of him. "When are you going to preach about something that matters?" he asked. Apparently, he was a CEO, or something, of a business that was going to take over or drive out of business another owner who attends the same congregation. He was having a hard time trying to balance his business ethics and personal ethics.
Can a preacher identify with a struggle like that? Or can he just make the best assessment he can from an objective perspective?
Step in, the layman.
Have you ever noticed yourself sometimes being more moved by the meditation before communion, often given by the volunteer in the congregation? Have you ever noticed the more practical use of personal life stories given by the layman who is sharing a personal, everyday struggle he conquered rather than the funny story or cookie-cutter illustration of a sermon? Suddenly what's being said feels less like a presentation on a passage of scripture and more like an identifiable, personal, relate-able life story that inspires.
The founding fathers of America originally had Congress set up with the "Lower House" (House of Representatives) being directly elected by the people and having shorter terms, and the "Upper House" (Senate) being elected by the House of Reps and having longer terms. The purpose was to have the Lower House being closer to the people and what they wanted, what was affecting their daily lives, but keeping the Upper House more stable and mature and not wavering with the constant changing of public opinion.
Having a church without heavy use of laymen I think would be like having a Congress of only the Senate. More mature and stable from being removed from everyday life, but also less able to read the needs of the everyday people.
A laymen will also at times probably be led better by the Holy Spirit. A volunteer who speaks rarely depends more on the Holy Spirit for guidance, I think, than the professional who might accidentally depend more on their knowledge of the bible and words for the sermon. He's more likely to look at how God is moving currently in their life than to try and extrapolate how God should be moving in your life from the scriptures. With the way we have churches organized today, I believe that without some kind of balance between the pastor and a group of laymen, the church is probably a little handicapped and not touching their congregants as much as they could... or should.
"My power is made perfect in weakness."
The lack of heavy schooling and training in biblical languages may actually help more than hinder God's willingness to speak and use a vessel. We don't want to cut ourselves off from a potentially powerful source of insight simply because the "qualifications" of a "speaker" are not there. That blue collar worker may be just the person God wants to explore some profound truth or insight with the local church. One might even expect it, since history shows God purposely looking for the "unlikelees" to partner with in his plans.
No comments:
Post a Comment