We all know that churches can be led by lay people – and in vacancies, for example, often are. Alan Stanley believes this is a good thing

My own semi-rural benefice of three churches has been in a vacancy for one year, and an appointment is unlikely for another twelve months. During that time, each of the churches has come to life under the humble, often hesitating and faltering, but shared and compassionate leadership of its own lay people. Some of these emerging lay leaders hold official positions, some do not, but all are working together to lead our churches out of Covid and into the next stage of God’s plan for us.

In looking at some of the theology and ecclesiology behind this lay led period, I have been amazed how so much has pointed to the conclusion that not only can churches be led by their lay people, but that they should be. Indeed, perhaps they actually need to be. Working from the New Testament through to today, I hope to set out some key reasons why I have arrived at that conclusion.

The New Testament picture is of a charismatic church gradually delineating different ministries but with no separation between the value of each. In fact, there is no evidence that ministries were tied to one person for all time. It is likely that the general oversight of the Christian community in the early centuries rested on the owner of the home in which the church met. When we look at the New Testament from its own perspective, rather than from our own, we find, as Sullivan says, ‘a variety of forms of leadership that developed according to the needs of the early church’.1 If we are to be true to the New Testament witness then, we too must look for a variety of forms of leadership that develop according to the needs of the twenty-first century church.
By the time of the Shepherd of Hermas (around 140)2 we encounter the phrase ‘the presbyters who are head of the community’. We must not make the assumption that these presbyters, or elders, were ‘ordained’ in the way we understand the word today. We must take care to note well Macy’s words looking at contemporary questions surrounding ordination:
Ordination in ancient document(s) was not the same concept that the modern question implies.3
Perhaps all we can glean from the New Testament is that the leadership of the early Christian communities was shared and changed as the communities themselves changed.
That brings us to the first thousand years of Christian history. In a compelling argument Macy helps us understand that ‘ordination’ was entry into one of the many offices needed to give the Christian community the order and missionary zeal that St Paul had called for in 1 Corinthians 14.
Macy summarises his argument thus:
Ordination had a far different meaning for the first half of Christian history than it would come to have in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries.3
In a very telling comment on the development of ministries in the first half of Christian history, the Roman Catholic theologian Schmidt writes that ‘all theologies of the ministry, however profound, are the consequences of a historical development in church structure’.4 From this he concludes that ‘the church has very great freedom over the content of its structures’.
This brings us to the dawn of that structure which is the parish system in England. First, we need to acknowledge that the parish church system owes its origins to lay people. The private churches of the local landowner were eventually opened up to all his tenants and became the church for the parish. Moorman tell us that ‘The village priest was therefore very much his lord’s “man” and subject to his authority and jurisdiction’.5 The priests themselves were local men, chosen for the work by the landowner, with only rudimentary education, and a bishop’s licence. Their role was to ensure public worship, engage in some simple teaching and carry out pastoral duties, all under the day-to-day direction of their lay benefactor. It was only with the development of sacramental theology in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries that a class of priests began to emerge who did not have their roots in their own local community, the so-called Mass Priests.
This local attachment was very slow to die out. Adrian Hastings writes about one James Hastings who, when he became Rector of Martly in 1920, could trace a family line of rectors through his father and grandfather back to 1791.6 The early rural parish clergy had no training as understood today and were following in the pattern of being local men, eventually also being Oxford or Cambridge educated. They were still ordained simply to lead worship and give pastoral care and instruction. Hastings comments: ‘This tradition of a laicised clergy went hand in hand with that of a church-minded laity, the “ecclesiastical layman”’. He continues: ‘A national church was, in all sorts of ways, a lay controlled Church, from parliament to the most local patronage’.6
When then did the Church of England cease to be a ‘lay controlled Church’? We could argue that the advent of structures which were designed to increase lay involvement in the Church of England may have in fact had the opposite effect.
In 1919, the bishops wanted the church to have more autonomy from Parliament. One consequence of that, whether intended or not, was to set in law the relationship between the incumbent and the people of the parish. The whole system of synodical government in the Church of England, and its equivalent in many other historic churches, has been designed to give lay people a voice in church affairs. Synods, whether national, regional, or local, may on occasion vote by Houses (bishops, clergy and lay), with a majority in all of the three sometimes required for a decision to be made. However, at the smallest and most local level, the Parochial Church Council, the incumbent is only required to consult with the lay people. The ideal is that all should work together, but this is a one-sided working together when the incumbent can act without the agreement of the lay people and remain, in the official words ‘the head’. The care of the people in the parish (the ‘cure of souls’) is shared by the bishop with the incumbent but not with the local lay people.
I am reminded of a quote from Cardinal John Henry Newman to the effect that the clergy would look pretty silly without the laity. The fact remains however that a reform which was intended to increase lay leadership ham-strung it at parish level from the start.
Anyone doubting that the laity have been disenfranchised by synodical government only needs to glance at the Guidance the House of Bishops issued during the pandemic:
Who makes the decision on what happens in church settings and at events held in church buildings?
The responsibility for making decisions about how to proceed lies with the incumbent.
This applies to acts of worship, to events run by the PCC or church community, and to decisions on whether to hire out spaces or allow other events to proceed. Incumbents should feel empowered to make locally appropriate decisions … 7
There is no mention of the responsibility lying with the PCC, or even of the churchwardens and incumbent acting together. The implication is clear.
All this is not simply an academic exercise. This top-down leadership model has seriously inhibited the mission activity of many churches, as the slowness to rebuild congregation numbers to pre-pandemic levels shows all too clearly.
This stands in contrast to some of the small and medium sized enterprises and large multinational companies which weathered the pandemic much more successfully than the church. In these organisations even the most authoritative founders and leaders share their decision making with others, though not necessarily those in the hierarchy chart.
Writing in 1981 (hence the use of masculine language), the Roman Catholic theologian Edward Schillebeeckx said: ‘This “community of God” is a brotherhood in which the power structures prevailing in the world are broken down (Matt. 20.25f.; Luke 22.25; Mark 10 42f.): all are equal.’8 It appears that the hierarchy of the Church of England does not follow Schillebeeckx’s thinking.

In contrast, Jürgen Moltmann (a theologian from the Reformed tradition) provides a clear expression in his The Trinity and the Kingdom of God of how an understanding of the Trinity should influence the way local churches are led.9 Moltmann argues that the Holy Trinity forms its own unity by the three persons loving each other, interacting with each other and sustaining each other in a community of equals. This, for Moltmann, is the exemplar of all true human communities, starting with the church. There is no room for monarchy in leadership; the only way is to follow the example of the Trinity and see leadership as community.
The hierarchical structure of the Church of England does not appear to follow this thinking. Perhaps now the time has arrived for it to engage in some ‘ecclesial restructuring’, to use a phrase coined by Cardinal Yves Congar. It will be a challenging process to go through, as was the process to ordain women, but no less rewarding. Kenneth Hylson-Smith outlines the challenge to clergy that enabling true lay leadership brings:
As part of the process, clergy and ministers all too typically appear to be over-cautious in sharing true leadership with the lay people ….. such apprehension is fully understandable. There are, of course, real risks in any devolution of power and authority. But the extent to which restraint or fear overcomes boldness is … highly detrimental to the work of the churches 10 (my emphasis).

A second article, to appear in the Summer 2023 issue of this magazine, will look at what a permanently lay-led church could look like in practice.

Alan Stanley is an LLM in the Elmete Trinity Benefice, Diocese of Leeds, and a part-time prison chaplain.

References
1 Sullivan, F A, From Apostles to Bishops: The Development of the Episcopacy in the Early Church. New Jersey: Newman Press, 2001: p.99.
2 See https://www.oxfordbibliographies.com/view/document/obo-9780195393361/obo-9780195393361-0230.xml
3 Macy, G, The Hidden History of Women’s Ordination, Female Clergy in the Medieval West. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008: p.15.
4 Schmidt, P, ‘Ministries in the New Testament and the Early Church’. In Kerkhovs, J (ed) Europe without Priests? London: SCM, 1995: p.84.
5 Moorman, J R H, A History of the Church of England. London: A&C Black, 1980: p.28.
6 Hastings, A, A History of English Christianity 1920–1985. London: Collins, 1986: p.69.
7 House of Bishops Guidance issued 9th December 2021.
8 Schillebeeckx, E, Ministry. Leadership in the Community of Jesus Christ. New York: Crossroad, 1981: p.34.
9 Moltmann, J, The Trinity and the Kingdom of God. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1980.
10 Hylson-Smith, K, The Laity in Christian History and Today. London: SPCK, 2008: p.136.