1) As a Protestant, I have to point out that you don't take this point nearly far enough. There wasn't even a Pope - I would argue at all, but certainly not in the imperial sense inherited from Gregory the Great - for several hundred years. Similarly, while I can't recall off-hand the date of the change, the Roman church has decided that the Apostle Paul's injunction that bishops ought (in general) to be married can be ignored and celibacy mandated instead. If modern Roman Catholic institutional arrangements are legitimate, this necessarily requires that the Church has the power to re-arbitrate even Scripture-based organizational practice. (Of course, I think quite a bit of the Roman Catholic institutional accretion isn't legitimate, but that also has nothing to do with whether it's considered suitable by the surrounding culture.)
2a) Let's define "parish" broadly as the practice of Christians living with the people they worship with. I admit that this has been almost entirely - and wrongly - abandoned by American Protestants; but it doesn't seem to me that Roman Catholics are much behind us in practice. Even for Protestants - despite the glorification of individual conscience - I think it's mostly accidental: you live one place, work some distance from home, have to shop in a third place, and even the closest church may be off in yet a fourth direction. I'm not sure the individual's responsibility to pursue geographical life integration - actually I think this is a weakness of mine - but it seems like the church as a body ought to, as much as possible, live full lives together and the Church's institutions and clergy ought to actively encourage this goal and not merely leave it to lay efforts - without denying that the laity will in fact have to do much of the work and even instigate at times. Overall, I think the goal is to reinvigorate institutions, not shrug off their loss as simply humanity moving on to some kind of new phase.
2b) I'm not sure about the descriptive accuracy of the engine/fuel analogy, but I don't like it at all as an aspirational one. I suspect the fuel:engine::parishioners:parish analogy may be descriptively accurate for the 20th century, as it mirrors the secularization of the American Protestant churches during the same time period. By "secularization" I mean the Church trying to leave God out of the equation. The "fuel" of the Church must Christ. If I want to extend my correction, I might say Christ is the fuel and the Spirit is the engine. The clergy are the guidance mechanism for our machine - that is, while they are of course crucial to proper progress of the Church, they provide no motive power on their own - and the laity the actual machinery. In this analogy and consistent with what I said above the organization of parishes (or any proposed alternative) ought perhaps to be considered the frame? It doesn't, maybe, really do much by itself, but try doing anything without it!
Jon, hi! It's good to hear from you. It's been a while! I hope you're doing well.
So first of all, it has been a *long* time since I've heard someone identify themselves as "Protestant." More often I hear words like evangelical, Lutheran, pentecostal, etc. This is a bit of a throwback for me. Can you remind me (or tell me, if it's changed since we last spoke) more specifically what Protestant tradition you're coming from? Obviously we have disagreements on, e.g., the pope (Catholics disagree with everyone about the pope), but especially with your 2b, sacramental theology plays a role as well, and I don't remember/know what you believe about sacraments.
1) I'm going to pass by this one, but not without explaining why. I'm not a historian and the historical question is outside the scope of my project (and my ability to cram in enough reading). I'm a committed Catholic studying at a Catholic institution, so for this project, I'm taking for granted the claims of the Catholic Church. I'm sure that most Catholic historians would make different claims than you're making here, and I do know enough history to know that reality is a lot more complex and nuanced than *any* very simplified reading (which is to say, the history of Catholicism I gleaned in 7th grade probably does not do justice to the reality of history either).
2a) "Overall, I think the goal is to reinvigorate institutions, not shrug off their loss as simply humanity moving on to some kind of new phase." Do you think this specifically in the religious arena (e.g. parishes, etc.) or in general (so, including the Lions Club, public/parochial schools, public libraries, etc.)? It doesn't surprise me that the homeschool movement and the decline of institutions *as such* happened / are happening at roughly the same time (though I make no claims regarding cause/effect). I guess what I'm asking here is: Do you think reinvigorating institutions is important specifically for the spread of the gospel or more in general because society is better off with institutions?
2b) Well, okay. Obviously God is the fuel of any authentically Christian action; I agree with you here. The analogy isn't intended to cut God out of parish life, but to understand the relationship of clergy to laity. If the parishioners fuel the engine of the parish, then ideally they themselves are fueled by God's love, etc., but the point of the analogy here is that the parishioners build up the institution of the parish with their time, talent, and treasure, and the secular world meets the religious world through the institution of the parish. The message from the parish to the parishioners is going to be largely "we need volunteers to help with this event" and that sort of thing.
If the parish fuels the parishioners, presumeably a lot of that fuel is going to *be* God, i.e. sacraments, Bible studies, catechesis, etc. Not that we worship the catechism, but that all these things help grow the parishioners' relationship with God and life of faith. The message from the parish to the parishioners is going to be more like "go tell your co-workers about Jesus," and the secular world is going to encounter the religious world primarily through these kinds of interactions.
The thing here -- and maybe I'm speaking as a millennial skeptical of institutions -- is that in the older model, the thing can run without God. You don't have to have a life of faith to run a bake sale. That said, I think that *not* having a vibrant institution comes with its own losses as well.
Mary - yes, it's been a while. I'll admit some excitement just to have something to discuss seriously.
As for terminology, I mostly say "Protestant" these days but "evangelical" would do just as well. The church I attend (as were the ones I was raised in) is Reformed; I think the Lutheran standards might be more accurate but I've acquired some reticence since college about what exactly the responsibilities of the individual layman are vs. the authority of the clergy. In short, it's a bit complicated but to be honest the exact denomination doesn't matter - I think - to the points I raised.
Re. 2a) and the institutions: I certainly believe that a healthy civilization will have strong institutions. I don't know that it's possible to say any specific set is required, but I'm certainly not just talking about the Church. The point about homeschooling is an interesting one - I've considered the idea before that, if a public school system is a necessary strength of a civilization, the fact that homeschooling as a movement effectively represented a surrender of that forum to (at best) agnosticism must count as a cultural strategic defeat. A full discussion would quickly get more complicated and it's hard to blame any specific individuals - to say nothing of answering the question whether the public schools, at least as an entrenched and mandated apparatus, will really be beneficial and if so how.
But on 2b) I find your use of "the parish" isn't quite jiving with how I was thinking of it. You're treating "the parish" - as I read it - effectively as synonymous with the clergy, while I was considering it more as an aspect of the laity or possibly even a third thing. To match your usage, then I'd certainly come down on the side of the "parish" fueling the parishioners. (Although - and this is where I take issue with many evangelicals as well - I believe the unbelievers' "encounter [with] the religious world" ought to primarily come through the work of the clergy (both as part of their general work and in specially appointed roles) and not be considered a primary responsibility of the laity - who have their own vocations (meaning this in the Protestant usage, especially common among Lutherans, here - one is called to be a teacher, baker, bus driver, etc. based on gifts and even simple life conditions, not only called to directly religious service).
tl;dr summary: I think you're right to the extent of saying that the laity ought to understand they have responsibilities beyond what the clergy demand; but I don't think you can do this in a meaningful way without some kind of structure directly connected and even managed by the Church, whether we call this the "parish" or something else.
1. I tend not to look to the institutional church for spiritual friendships and growth. I have a prayer group that meets in my home, and I started a book club in the parish because I wanted one. Other women's ministries in the parish have been started and are run by lay faithful who saw the need and made a plan to meet it. Except for RCIA run by a deacon and one 20-minute prayer service weekly run by our associate priest, clergy isn't involved in anything fostering spiritual growth. It's all done by the laity.
2. Our parish is focused on the personality and preaching/teaching skills of our pastor. He is amazingly gifted at bringing people to Jesus through his preaching and teaching. Reconciliations is celebrated with enthusiasm. However, the daily life of the parish is run by the laity - and we do a good job helping each other grow in our faith. I don't think our pastor really knows what else is going on in the parish besides his preaching and teaching ministries. I feel like the engine and the fuel are in 2 different vehicles running side-by-side. It seems to be working, however.
3. In a world that doesn't trust institutions, our parish's ministries are just what the doctor ordered. Our pastoral staff does not lead at all in meeting the fellowship and educational needs of the laity. All our ministries are run by the laity. Most have grown up organically by lay people who have seen a need and gathered people together to run the needed ministry.
Thanks! This is interesting, as it brings up another piece that I missed. A parish (pastor) may be more or less open to different ministries at his parish. One pastor may want tighter control over what happens and say "no" to things he hasn't thoroughly vetted (and may not have bandwidth for much vetting). Another pastor may be more open to whatever could be a movement of the Holy Spirit and say "yes" to most things that parishioners want to do. Both approaches have pros and cons, and it makes sense to me that the pastor himself decides how to handle these things at his parish.
However, there is another side to it. Let's say I want to run a Bible study (or whatever). I can ask my pastor if I can run it at the parish. He can say yes, or no, or yes but with some stipulations that I may or may not want to follow. Alternatively, I could tell my friends and we can just do it in my living room, and I don't need anybody's permission to do that.
When I was thinking of lay-run things, I was thinking more of the latter -- lay people who do things outside the parish/diocesan structure. Examples would be FOCUS, any number of independent Catholic schools, many books and other publications, etc.
I agree with Elizabeth, that my experience has been that although most of my friends are Catholics, I didn't necessarily meet them at Church functions, nor do I look to the parish for meetings or groups to join. Over the years I have been involved in various groups, but they were initiated not by the parish, but by people who happen to be parishioners, if that makes sense.
Of course, I do rely on the parish priest for Mass, confession, and other sacraments as the case may be (baptisms for children and grandchildren, etc). However, I do know of a few parishes where there is a lot going on that seems to be often directed by or strongly encouraged by the pastor.
Responses:
1) As a Protestant, I have to point out that you don't take this point nearly far enough. There wasn't even a Pope - I would argue at all, but certainly not in the imperial sense inherited from Gregory the Great - for several hundred years. Similarly, while I can't recall off-hand the date of the change, the Roman church has decided that the Apostle Paul's injunction that bishops ought (in general) to be married can be ignored and celibacy mandated instead. If modern Roman Catholic institutional arrangements are legitimate, this necessarily requires that the Church has the power to re-arbitrate even Scripture-based organizational practice. (Of course, I think quite a bit of the Roman Catholic institutional accretion isn't legitimate, but that also has nothing to do with whether it's considered suitable by the surrounding culture.)
2a) Let's define "parish" broadly as the practice of Christians living with the people they worship with. I admit that this has been almost entirely - and wrongly - abandoned by American Protestants; but it doesn't seem to me that Roman Catholics are much behind us in practice. Even for Protestants - despite the glorification of individual conscience - I think it's mostly accidental: you live one place, work some distance from home, have to shop in a third place, and even the closest church may be off in yet a fourth direction. I'm not sure the individual's responsibility to pursue geographical life integration - actually I think this is a weakness of mine - but it seems like the church as a body ought to, as much as possible, live full lives together and the Church's institutions and clergy ought to actively encourage this goal and not merely leave it to lay efforts - without denying that the laity will in fact have to do much of the work and even instigate at times. Overall, I think the goal is to reinvigorate institutions, not shrug off their loss as simply humanity moving on to some kind of new phase.
2b) I'm not sure about the descriptive accuracy of the engine/fuel analogy, but I don't like it at all as an aspirational one. I suspect the fuel:engine::parishioners:parish analogy may be descriptively accurate for the 20th century, as it mirrors the secularization of the American Protestant churches during the same time period. By "secularization" I mean the Church trying to leave God out of the equation. The "fuel" of the Church must Christ. If I want to extend my correction, I might say Christ is the fuel and the Spirit is the engine. The clergy are the guidance mechanism for our machine - that is, while they are of course crucial to proper progress of the Church, they provide no motive power on their own - and the laity the actual machinery. In this analogy and consistent with what I said above the organization of parishes (or any proposed alternative) ought perhaps to be considered the frame? It doesn't, maybe, really do much by itself, but try doing anything without it!
Jon, hi! It's good to hear from you. It's been a while! I hope you're doing well.
So first of all, it has been a *long* time since I've heard someone identify themselves as "Protestant." More often I hear words like evangelical, Lutheran, pentecostal, etc. This is a bit of a throwback for me. Can you remind me (or tell me, if it's changed since we last spoke) more specifically what Protestant tradition you're coming from? Obviously we have disagreements on, e.g., the pope (Catholics disagree with everyone about the pope), but especially with your 2b, sacramental theology plays a role as well, and I don't remember/know what you believe about sacraments.
1) I'm going to pass by this one, but not without explaining why. I'm not a historian and the historical question is outside the scope of my project (and my ability to cram in enough reading). I'm a committed Catholic studying at a Catholic institution, so for this project, I'm taking for granted the claims of the Catholic Church. I'm sure that most Catholic historians would make different claims than you're making here, and I do know enough history to know that reality is a lot more complex and nuanced than *any* very simplified reading (which is to say, the history of Catholicism I gleaned in 7th grade probably does not do justice to the reality of history either).
2a) "Overall, I think the goal is to reinvigorate institutions, not shrug off their loss as simply humanity moving on to some kind of new phase." Do you think this specifically in the religious arena (e.g. parishes, etc.) or in general (so, including the Lions Club, public/parochial schools, public libraries, etc.)? It doesn't surprise me that the homeschool movement and the decline of institutions *as such* happened / are happening at roughly the same time (though I make no claims regarding cause/effect). I guess what I'm asking here is: Do you think reinvigorating institutions is important specifically for the spread of the gospel or more in general because society is better off with institutions?
2b) Well, okay. Obviously God is the fuel of any authentically Christian action; I agree with you here. The analogy isn't intended to cut God out of parish life, but to understand the relationship of clergy to laity. If the parishioners fuel the engine of the parish, then ideally they themselves are fueled by God's love, etc., but the point of the analogy here is that the parishioners build up the institution of the parish with their time, talent, and treasure, and the secular world meets the religious world through the institution of the parish. The message from the parish to the parishioners is going to be largely "we need volunteers to help with this event" and that sort of thing.
If the parish fuels the parishioners, presumeably a lot of that fuel is going to *be* God, i.e. sacraments, Bible studies, catechesis, etc. Not that we worship the catechism, but that all these things help grow the parishioners' relationship with God and life of faith. The message from the parish to the parishioners is going to be more like "go tell your co-workers about Jesus," and the secular world is going to encounter the religious world primarily through these kinds of interactions.
The thing here -- and maybe I'm speaking as a millennial skeptical of institutions -- is that in the older model, the thing can run without God. You don't have to have a life of faith to run a bake sale. That said, I think that *not* having a vibrant institution comes with its own losses as well.
Mary - yes, it's been a while. I'll admit some excitement just to have something to discuss seriously.
As for terminology, I mostly say "Protestant" these days but "evangelical" would do just as well. The church I attend (as were the ones I was raised in) is Reformed; I think the Lutheran standards might be more accurate but I've acquired some reticence since college about what exactly the responsibilities of the individual layman are vs. the authority of the clergy. In short, it's a bit complicated but to be honest the exact denomination doesn't matter - I think - to the points I raised.
Re. 2a) and the institutions: I certainly believe that a healthy civilization will have strong institutions. I don't know that it's possible to say any specific set is required, but I'm certainly not just talking about the Church. The point about homeschooling is an interesting one - I've considered the idea before that, if a public school system is a necessary strength of a civilization, the fact that homeschooling as a movement effectively represented a surrender of that forum to (at best) agnosticism must count as a cultural strategic defeat. A full discussion would quickly get more complicated and it's hard to blame any specific individuals - to say nothing of answering the question whether the public schools, at least as an entrenched and mandated apparatus, will really be beneficial and if so how.
But on 2b) I find your use of "the parish" isn't quite jiving with how I was thinking of it. You're treating "the parish" - as I read it - effectively as synonymous with the clergy, while I was considering it more as an aspect of the laity or possibly even a third thing. To match your usage, then I'd certainly come down on the side of the "parish" fueling the parishioners. (Although - and this is where I take issue with many evangelicals as well - I believe the unbelievers' "encounter [with] the religious world" ought to primarily come through the work of the clergy (both as part of their general work and in specially appointed roles) and not be considered a primary responsibility of the laity - who have their own vocations (meaning this in the Protestant usage, especially common among Lutherans, here - one is called to be a teacher, baker, bus driver, etc. based on gifts and even simple life conditions, not only called to directly religious service).
tl;dr summary: I think you're right to the extent of saying that the laity ought to understand they have responsibilities beyond what the clergy demand; but I don't think you can do this in a meaningful way without some kind of structure directly connected and even managed by the Church, whether we call this the "parish" or something else.
1. I tend not to look to the institutional church for spiritual friendships and growth. I have a prayer group that meets in my home, and I started a book club in the parish because I wanted one. Other women's ministries in the parish have been started and are run by lay faithful who saw the need and made a plan to meet it. Except for RCIA run by a deacon and one 20-minute prayer service weekly run by our associate priest, clergy isn't involved in anything fostering spiritual growth. It's all done by the laity.
2. Our parish is focused on the personality and preaching/teaching skills of our pastor. He is amazingly gifted at bringing people to Jesus through his preaching and teaching. Reconciliations is celebrated with enthusiasm. However, the daily life of the parish is run by the laity - and we do a good job helping each other grow in our faith. I don't think our pastor really knows what else is going on in the parish besides his preaching and teaching ministries. I feel like the engine and the fuel are in 2 different vehicles running side-by-side. It seems to be working, however.
3. In a world that doesn't trust institutions, our parish's ministries are just what the doctor ordered. Our pastoral staff does not lead at all in meeting the fellowship and educational needs of the laity. All our ministries are run by the laity. Most have grown up organically by lay people who have seen a need and gathered people together to run the needed ministry.
Thanks! This is interesting, as it brings up another piece that I missed. A parish (pastor) may be more or less open to different ministries at his parish. One pastor may want tighter control over what happens and say "no" to things he hasn't thoroughly vetted (and may not have bandwidth for much vetting). Another pastor may be more open to whatever could be a movement of the Holy Spirit and say "yes" to most things that parishioners want to do. Both approaches have pros and cons, and it makes sense to me that the pastor himself decides how to handle these things at his parish.
However, there is another side to it. Let's say I want to run a Bible study (or whatever). I can ask my pastor if I can run it at the parish. He can say yes, or no, or yes but with some stipulations that I may or may not want to follow. Alternatively, I could tell my friends and we can just do it in my living room, and I don't need anybody's permission to do that.
When I was thinking of lay-run things, I was thinking more of the latter -- lay people who do things outside the parish/diocesan structure. Examples would be FOCUS, any number of independent Catholic schools, many books and other publications, etc.
I agree with Elizabeth, that my experience has been that although most of my friends are Catholics, I didn't necessarily meet them at Church functions, nor do I look to the parish for meetings or groups to join. Over the years I have been involved in various groups, but they were initiated not by the parish, but by people who happen to be parishioners, if that makes sense.
Of course, I do rely on the parish priest for Mass, confession, and other sacraments as the case may be (baptisms for children and grandchildren, etc). However, I do know of a few parishes where there is a lot going on that seems to be often directed by or strongly encouraged by the pastor.