The Liberation of the Laity: in Search of an Accountable Church

Christian Century, Feb 10, 2004 by Kathleen A. Cahalan

Inside the church, Lakeland recommends revolution. The laity must take on an adult role, claiming accountability and responsibility for their work and ministry. This means everything from democratically participating in decision--making to selecting bishops, collaborating with ordained ministers at the parish level, and working at diocesan and national levels to carry out the church's mission. If the church does not recognize the vocation of the laity ad intra, Lakeland claims, it will surely lose them. Not only will the laity leave the church, but the church will fail to live up to its own theological claims about the baptismal identity of the people.

Lakeland's constructive ecclesiology and anthropology push the conversation a step beyond Congar, the council and John Paul II. Yet for all his pushing he never questions the category of the "laity." In fact, Lakeland holds to the distinction between the laity and clergy by reinforcing the idea that the laity's primary locus is the world, while the clergy's primary locus is the church. He extends the 20th-century conversations to their logical conclusion.

By the time one finishes Lakeland's book, however, it's hard not to wonder why the church needs the designation "lay'" at all. The qualifier has done little to serve "lay" people. It creates a duality and division within the church. What finally does Lakeland want "lay" to me, an? There is nothing in the scriptures or the early writings of the church that claims a technical use of the term as central to the theology and practice of the Christian community. No Christian is baptized to be a "lay" person. Jesus does not call people saying, "Come be the laity." And there has never been anything liturgical about the term. Since the technical term "lay" that confines some members of the church to a limited status has no theological basis, we should drop it.

Who, then, are we as members of the church? Yes, certainly the "people," the laos, but people who are disciples and followers of Christ. Why not call ourselves such? Why be a "lay" person in the Catholic Church (or any other church) when our baptismal identity is one of discipleship? Claiming the language of baptism and discipleship would go much further in helping us construct a theology of ministry, and more particularly a theology of ordained ministry, than holding to the lay-clergy distinction and continuing to build theological rationales to support each.

Certainly a fundamental aspect of discipleship is participation in the ministerial life of the community--service through teaching, preaching, caring for souls, praying and leading--a service that all Christians are responsible to participate in, and a service some are called to lead. Lakeland's theology of the laity has gone a long way in helping us to think about the role of the people of God in the church and in the world. I only wish he had gone one step further.

Reviewed by Kathleen A. Cahalan, assistant professor of theology at St. John's University School of Theology in Collegeville, Minnesota.