I noted a few tweets last night around lay ministry and in particular the place of the Reader as a licensed lay minister in the Church of England. I have, as it happens, also spent quite a bit of time recently visiting other dioceses and looking at what they are doing regarding their training of Readers, and giving this what passes in my mind for thought.
For those outside Anglican circles, I should probably draw your attention to this page explaining that
Readers are lay men and women, from a wide diversity of occupations and backgrounds, who recognize a call to serve God and his world through the Church of England. They work in a variety of roles and situations across the Church, being authorised by the Church of England to preach and teach, to conduct or assist in conducting worship, and to assist in the pastoral, evangelistic and liturgical work of the Church in the parish or area where they are licensed.
One of the problems facing anyone trying to say anything coherent about either lay ministry in general or Reader ministry in particular is that they have grown in a disorganised, haphazard manner, not helped by the inability of the Church of England to agree much about any theology of ministry, lay or ordained. Like the Ordinal’s descriptions of ordained ministries, the one above tends to the functional compiling of job lists rather than attempting to define the core.
Essentially the mid-19th century resurrection of a minor order from the early church as a lay office focussed on reading the lessons in church services, and reading services of prayer, together with the Scriptures accompanied by an explanation on various mission contexts outside the churches. (All services were read, not led in those days.)
The former role eventually became eclipsed by widespread literacy allowing almost anyone to have a go, whether they made the Scriptures intelligible or not (quite often “not” as far as I can see). The latter role has constantly struggled against the Church’s centripetal obsession with its own navel. Both have been affected by the mid-twentieth century’s invention of every-member ministry, itself another example of the church’s inward turn: deprived of relevance in the real world, everybody imparted a great deal of self-importance to the roles they played in church.
The main place where baptised people exercise their share in the priesthood and ministry of Christ is in their daily lives, and only then in bringing those daily lives into the assembly of prayer and worship when Christ gathers his people together. Within that assembly, it is quite right that people contribute according to their gifts, but that does not mean everything has to be called a ministry.
We have gifts that differ according to the grace given to us: prophecy, in proportion to faith; ministry, in ministering; the teacher, in teaching; the exhorter, in exhortation; the giver, in generosity; the leader, in diligence; the compassionate, in cheerfulness. (Rom 12:6-8)
Here “ministry” (διακονία) seems to have some kind of technical meaning of (social?) service, rather than a generic meaning of “action for / to others in God’s name / service”. Certainly this is what the later developed office of deacon pointed to. “Every member ministry” in that light is simply a mischaracterisation, although one that could claim some readings of 1 Corinthians 12 in its support.
Against that backdrop I do want to argue that there are some things which should be seen as specific ministries, which are best seen as lay in character, rather than needing ordination. (And no, they don’t need to appear in one of St Paul’s lists, which are illustrative, not exhaustive.) Evangelist is one, but the ministry of Reader is another. I don’t think it helps to subsume all such ministries under the currently fashionable name “Licensed Lay Minister” – at least one diocese is using that officially sanctioned name change effectively to abolish distinctive offices.
What is it, then, which is the core of a distinctive lay ministry of Reader? There seems to be a centre of gravity, as it were, developing among those providing training for this ministry. The core business of Reader ministry is that it is to be a “lay theologian” (a calling traditionally recognised more in the East than the West).
The Reader reads both the sacred text and the texts of contemporary culture (and if we are to believe the cultural theorists, everything is a text) and ponders how to bring them into a helpful and intelligible conversation. That will certainly include a preaching ministry and a teaching ministry, but also a role facilitating local churches to develop their vision for how to live out a life of faith, hope and love that is authentic and truthful to where they live and to the inherited tradition of the Church.
Being lay is a significant element in reading the scriptures from within daily work and life, not as words only for the gathered assembly, but as words for the dispersed assembly. That, it seems to me, is a challenge and a vocation worth being called a ministry, and honoured as one. If it might seem a bit scary both to many clergy and many existing Readers, it nonetheless, I think, answers to one of the Church’s most pressing needs, and explains why the Church needs to restrict it to those who have committed themselves to being trained for it as the Church’s ministry and not simply their own.
I am confused by your last paragraph. The ‘church’ proclaims the word and sacrament, the people take it to within their daily work. Are they to use it or not? It’s the last sentence – trained for ‘it’ – Do you mean that only clergy and readers should read the Scriptures from within daily work?
No, I mean being trained to be a “lay theologian” helping others with their own reflective practice.
Now that does make sense to me!
A really interesting piece Doug, and I was reassured by it’s positive conclusion.
I particularly like what you say about Readers being able to contribute something to the vision of how we live out our life as Christian’s in the world of work and daily life (in which I would include parenthood, marriage, family life in all it’s forms).
We (and I speak as a Reader) are in an “in between” place, that hopefully gives us insights from both within ‘ordinary, non-clerical’ life, and from within the structures of the church. If we’re doing our “job” properly we should be feeding both into our conversations, teaching and preaching.
As an example, I found that becoming heavily involved in our ‘values’ work, that encouraged people to have integrity in the way we are church (both when together in fellowship and in our daily lives) was really exciting.
I would also say that the idea of using living examples from lay life, should not be restricted to preaching and teaching, but can contribute to the story that is unfolded through well constructed lay led services (where there is freedom to do so). It should make it easier for God to be visible to people.
But these things are not exclusive techniques to Readers – clergy should be using them to (but often don’t have time for great works of creative liturgy). Also if they’ve been ordained a long time, perhaps Readers help them to ‘see’ life on the ‘other side’ more clearly.
For what it’s worth, I much prefer the term Lay Minister though I’m in a Diocese where we are still very much “Readers”!
For some, like myself, whose ministry is almost full time, and includes work like taking funerals, “Lay Minister” it is a much clearer explanation of what we are and do. I would say that even in a funeral, I am ‘reading’ scripture in the context of daily life. Even though in this instance life is ‘death’ we are still reflecting on the life of the deceased and relating it to scripture (and visa versa) and hopefully also relating both into the lives of those who are left behind – at least that’s what I do.
Thanks for that detailed example of your own ministry, although I have to say it leaves me wondering a) in what sense an “almost full time” lay ministry is any more from within daily life than a full-time ordained one and b) whether you should be talking to your diocesan vocations advisor about discerning what this growth in ministry means.
Pingback: Should the C of E renew a permanent diaconate? « re:fractions