AKMA’s Random Thoughts

This, of course, extends to other major church traditions, espcially us presbys. At one time higher educational institutions existed to train clergy and clergy were de facto the most educated people in the church.

I certainly hope that we haven't come to the point where they are the LEAST educted among the bunch. The problem of what clergy are supposed to know/have competence in seems to be vexing to me, though removed somewhat from my own (lay) circumstances. I do occasionally hear someone criticize a sermon by noting that the pastor spoke to an area outside his competence.

The idea that seems to float about a bit on this topic is what I would call a pluralistic approach to competence, or spiritual gifts if you don't mind some light thumping on a bible. Pastors should be competent at pastoring and lay people should be competent at something else. But again, what these things are and how they fit together, and particularly how "authority" works therein are difficult issues, and not merely so in theory but moreson in practice.

Alas, your discussion of authority brings to mind for me the famous episode of South Park, where one of the characters is temporarily deputized as a cop, and runs around telling everyone “YOU WILL RESPECT MY AUTHORITY!!” It seems to me religious hierarchies sometimes forget that in the 21st century, people assemble at a church voluntarily. What does authority mean in a world where, like it or not, your “customers” will walk out the door if their needs are not being served?

But I also think you may be overly pessimistic in your assessment of the likelihood that a leader with “understanding and abilities” will win respect. (Whether they are adequately paid is another issue.) In my experience, lay people will accede to authority willingly and even allow themselves to be challenged by difficult messages, as Christianity must do. But authority is only effective when it comes hand-in-hand with a shared vision of community, and is exercised with kindness and respect. To impose formal authority from above, without making an attempt to build support within a community, is a recipe for disaster.

Merit-based relationships with the laity. How about within the clergy? Is the Episcopal church a meritocracy?

OK, not to make light of the subject, but I really like the idea of Cartman in a clerical collar.

Actually (not being a South Paark watcher) the image that haunts my ecclesiastical grouchiness is Dilbert’s pointy-haired boss in a collar. I photoshopped the image once — perhaps when I get back from Commencement, I’ll post the image.

What you in fact wrote was: "Since there are so many brilliant, effective Christians (as we can see in various academic, industrial, artistic, managerial, and political fields), why are so few of them called to the vocation of ordained ministry?" You implied that the brilliance and effectiveness was in some cases more suited to the ordained ministry than to the functions in which they were being exercised; that some, at least, of these "brilliant, effective Christians" had missed their calling. What you are writing now is almost the opposite of what you wrote then.

Hmmm, Timothy. I don’t think that I implied that “brilliance” was more suited to ordained ministry than lay ministry, so much as I stated that there seemed a relative paucity of brilliance in ordained leadership as compared to other domains of Christian endeavor. Since my earlier statement conveyed a different sense to you, I’m sorry for that misleading impression.

Yet another example, alas, of the extent to which signification escapes our control.