In February 1996, several well-known Christian leaders hosted a "Clergy
Conference" in Atlanta. These kinds of events, though undoubtedly well-intended,
nevertheless serve to perpetuate what I believe to be an unhealthy division of God's
people into two classes: the "clergy" and the "laity" - a distinction
that is totally without biblical justification. We have reproduced below the letter that I
sent to the sponsors of this Atlanta conference.
To: The sponsors of the Atlanta "Clergy Conference"
Re: Undermining the authority of God's Word by your promotion of the unscriptural
In several weeks you will be having a "Clergy Conference" in Atlanta. I know
you are well-meaning in your desire to support and affirm the "clergy". However,
in assuming this category of the "ordained", you are overlooking a more basic
and pressing question that must be addressed: "Does the New Testament teach that
there is a separate caste of church leaders designated as 'clergy' who are over the
'laity' ?" It does not. I have prepared a paper on this question that is enclosed for
By gathering "clergymen" together you are just assenting to the status quo
and, in effect, putting band aids on it. What really needs to be done is to hold a
conference where the New Testament's teaching on leadership is unfolded. If this were
done, of course, then the traditional "clergy/laity" practice would have to be
jettisoned in favor of the New Testament patterns.
Looking at the big picture, you are really doing harm to the very class of persons you
are trying to help. By not challenging the "clergy" system, which has brought
untold hurt to those within its pale, you end up giving pep-talks and encouragement to
people who are functioning in an office Christ has nowhere revealed in His Word. You admit
in Men of Action (Nov. 1995, p. 4), "Pastors are worn out, discouraged, and in need
of affirmation. In fact, poll after poll reveals that most pastors are battling isolation,
depression, and loneliness. They are so beaten up by the ministry . . ."Actually, the
situation among the "clergy" is much worse than this brief statement. But should
this be surprising when people are forced to fill a job description found nowhere in the
New Testament? The most Christ-honoring and caring thing you could do is to tell the
70,000 men that come to Atlanta to stop being "clergy", because God's Word
teaches nothing about "clergy".
I guess I have to honestly wonder: Do you leaders care at all that the New Testament
is, in fact, against the "clergy" system? Are you concerned that the
"clergy" system, as James D. G. Dunn points out, does more to undermine the
canonical authority of the New Testament than other heresies? You claim that God's Word
must be our authority in all matters of faith and practice. But you undermine and nullify
this confession by promoting a "clergy" system that is claiming the lives of men
and their families every moment. By assuming that the "clergy" category is
correct, your conference actually is perpetuating an unbiblical system that is to the
detriment of those who attend. Does this concern you? Is your conscience pricked because
you are promoting and cultivating that which the New Testament is against?
I do not think that I am beating in the air, or making a mountain out of a molehill.
There is substance to my concerns. Do you care enough to give real answers to your
constituents, or are you satisfied to go on encouraging a human tradition that has deeply
wounded untold thousands of men?
Thank you for considering my thoughts and article.
My letter to the sponsors of the recent "Clergy Conference" in Atlanta
reflects my deep concern over the biblically unjustified practice of dividing God's people
into two classes - pulpiteers and pew-sitters. It is a pattern that certainly reflects the
hierarchical patterns of the world, but which does not square with New Testament teaching.
This baseless "clergy/laity" distinction has become such an assumed given
that it permeates nearly all of our evangelical literature. The excerpts provided at the
end of this article* have been gleaned from magazines, books,
catalogues and advertisements and are typical of the extent to which the
"clergy/laity" division has become a part of our evangelical language and
The following material has been adapted from the article I submitted with my letter to
the conference sponsors. I have no desire to stir up unnecessary dissension, but I believe
that if the Church is to attain her full potential as the visible body of Christ, she must
divest herself of such unscriptural hierarchical structures and return to her intended
"one-another" relationships and ministries.
Before we examine the historical and biblical evidence, consider the following three
examples of the kind of teaching that has influenced this "clergy/laity"
On this office [of Pastor] and the discharge of it He has laid the whole weight of the
order, rule, and edification of His Church. 
[The Pastor] is like the cerebellum, the center for communicating messages,
coordinating functions, and conducting responses between the head and body . . .The pastor
is not only the authoritative communicator of the truth from the Head to the body, but he
is also the accurate communicator of the needs from the Body to the Head. 
[Pastor Hamman] likened the total church to an army. The army has only one
Commander-in-Chief, Jesus Christ. The local church is like a company with one company
commander, the pastor, who gets his orders from the Commander -in-Chief. The company
commander has lieutenants and sergeants under him for consultation and implementation, but
the final responsibility for decisions is that of the company commander, and he must
answer to the Commander-in-Chief . . . The Pastor has the power in a growing church . . .
The pastor of a growing church may appear to outsiders as a dictator. But to the people of
the church, his decisions are their decisions. 
A recent ad in an evangelical magazine, had the heading, "Not Every Question Gets
Answered On Sunday Morning". The truth is that probably no one's questions are
answered because no inquiries are allowed. The pulpit monologue precludes dialogue. The
pulpit can only be occupied by certain people - the "clergy". The rest - the
"laity" - sit in pews. In this dichotomy you have the essence of our religion -
Catholic, Protestant, or otherwise - in a nutshell: the "clergy" are paid to
give and the "laymen" pay in order to receive. This distinction permeates our
religious vocabulary, and unfortunately captures the heart of our practice: we pay the
"clergy" to do the necessary religious activities. It is wearying to hear
refrains like these repeated in so many evangelical advertisements: "Finally, a
commentary that both pastors and laymen can understand" . . . "this video is
equally profitable for clergy and laity".
While the "clergy/laity" distinction is embedded and assumed in religious
circles, it cannot be found in the New Testament. It reared up its ugly head in the third
century, long after Christ's apostles died. We should be pointedly reminded of the utter
deceitfulness of sin when we realize how deeply such an unscriptural and damaging concept
has taken root in visible Christianity.
The New Testament teaches leadership among the people of God, but not in a way that
leads to the "clergy/laity" conclusion. The root words from which we derive the
English words "clergy" and "laity" are found in the New Testament, but
our usage of "clergy/laity" is far removed from the New Testament concepts.
Clergy . . .
The English word "clergy" is related to the Greek word "cleros".
It means "a lot or inheritance". For example, in 1 Peter 5:3 the elders are
exhorted not to lord it over "the lots" (Greek: ton cleron), which
refers to the entire flock of God's people. Nowhere in the New Testament is any form of
"cleros" used to designate a separate class of "ordained" leaders.
Instead, it refers to the "inheritance" (Greek: clerou) laid up for all
the saints (Col. 1:12; Acts 26:18). The saints as a collective whole are conceived of in
the New Testament as God's "inheritance". We have utterly perverted and turned
upside-down the New Testament teaching by using the term "clergy: to refer to a
special elite group of church leaders.
Laity . . .
This English word is related to the Greek word "laos", which means
"people". The Greek word "laikos", which means
"laity", is not found in the New Testament. All in the body of Christ, whether
"saints, bishops, or deacons" (Phil. 1:1), are the "people" ("laos")
of God. "People of God" is a title of honor bestowed upon all who believe in the
Lord Jesus Christ (2 Cor. 6:16; 1 Pet. 2:9-10).
It was not until the third century that "clergy" was employed to designate a
limited number of persons who functioned in the Christian assemblies. One of the worst
outcomes of the "clergy" doctrine was that it communicated the notion that
without the "clergy" present there simply was no church. Baptism, the Lord's
Supper, and many other church practices, could not happen unless a "clergyman"
was present. This idea persists to our day even in the workplace, as James D. G. Dunn
notes, when "some of the early statements regarding industrial chaplaincies . . .
seemed to imply that the church was not present in industry unless and until an ordained
clergyman became involved on the factory floor". 
Because the New Testament knows nothing of "clergy" the fact that a separate
caste of the "ordained" permeated our vocabulary and practice illustrates rather
forcefully that we do not yet take the New Testament very seriously. The
"clergy" practice is a heresy that must be renounced. It strikes at the heart of
the priesthood of all believers that Jesus purchased on the cross. It contradicts the
shape Jesus' kingdom was to take when He said, "You are all brethren". Since it
is a tradition of men, it nullifies the Word of God (Mark 7:13). Dunn sees the emergence
of "clergy" as a very negative historical fact:
When Clement resorted once again to the distinction between "priest" and
"laity" (1 Clem. 40:5), he was pointing down a road which would fundamentally
compromise if not make a mere cipher of a very basic element in earliest Christianity's
self-understanding . . . It is the apparent disregard for something quite so fundamental
by subsequent Christian history that does more to undermine the canonical authority of the
New Testament than most heresies . . . The major authority acknowledged by all Christians
[the New Testament] has been effectively discounted and ignored. 
Every Christian tradition has its insights and blind spots. But the "clergy"
system is practiced across the board and is thus a universal blind spot. Seminaries and
Bible Schools have multiplied to produce people for the "clergy" profession;
ministerial conferences abound to supply support and encouragement that the
"laity" cannot give; magazines are published to provide ministerial tips;
pastoral search committees must be formed every time a minister moves on; clergy
counseling must be provided for those who burnout and have nervous breakdowns; etc., etc.
A whole intricate system is in place to perpetuate and preserve a role which the New
Testament knows nothing about.
Like it or not, this "clergy" role ends up requiring a virtual
omni-competence from those behind the pulpit. "Clergy" are paid to perform
whatever is necessary to keep the religious machinery going, and the expectations are very
high for those who wear the many hats this profession demands.
The deadly problem with this unscriptural system is that it eats up those within its
pale. Burnout, moral lapse, divorce, and suicide are very high among the
"clergy". Is it any wonder such repeated tragedies occur in light of what is
expected of one person? Christ never intended anyone to fill such an ecclesiastical role.
In light of Paul's remark in 1 Cor. 12:14 that "the body is not one part but
many", we should be able to discern that the "clergy" position is neither
healthy for those in it, nor is it beneficial for the body of Christ.
Scholars have debated the propriety of ordaining women as "clergy". However,
a larger, more fundamental question has been passed over in the process: should anyone,
male or female, be ordained as "clergy", since the Bible does not know of such
an office? 
The terms "Reformation" and "Renewal" are buzzwords in religious
publications. Sadly, most periodicals of this sort approach the "clergy" system
as sacrosanct, thereby reinforcing its stronghold in contemporary churches. I submit that
to seek the renewal of the "laity" while perpetuating the "clergy"
system is like mixing oil and water. Deep renewal (a healthy body) will come only as every
member contributes his/her gifts and graces, which includes a leadership that practices
the servant model revealed by Jesus in Mark 10:42-45. The "clergy" system stands
as a monumental obstacle to genuine reformation and renewal. The church must jettison this
system in order for the Word of God to have free course.
If those who function as "clergy" come to conviction that
this role originates from unscriptural traditions and not from New Testament patterns,
there are some practical steps that must be taken: