In respond to the clergy/laity article you mentioned on my blog.

Preliminary Issues:
1.  The letter itself I found to be written in such an arrogrant, schmistic tone that I have a heard time even following his argument.  I think that the attitude I discerned from the letter does more harm to the church and the world than the issue at hand.

2.  Understanding of clergy and laity--I am not entirely clear in what this guy views as clergy.  Is he referring to any sort of ordained officer in the church or just those who are paid?  One of the things I like about my denomination (Presbyterian Church in America) is that there is parity between elders, whether one is a teaching elder or a ruling elder (unpaid).  They (along with deacons) are ordained.  This division does seem biblical (1 Tim 5:17-18).  The teaching elder has more training and a more detailed ordination exam because of passages like James 3:1--their gifts and responsiblity require these.  Furthermore, they preach and give the sacraments as gifts to the church and the sacraments only are given by the teaching elder because the sacrament is the word signifed; there is a connection between Word and Sacrament in Reformed theology.  I say all this to ask, what exactly does he question when he questions clergy?

Evaluation:
1.  The claim that this distiniction does not emerge until the 3rd century does not seem to pay attention to the epistles of Timothy (who were the elders and the deacons?  are they not officiers), or the Apostolic Fathers (Clement of Rome, Ignatius of Antioch rebuked churches for their lack of orderly succession and lack of submission to church leaders....furthermore, who would these guys even be if these distinctions were not drawn until the 3rd century).

2.  One of his primary reasons for calling this a heresy is that it threatens the important principle of the priesthood of all believers mean?  But what does the priesthood of all believers mean?  Are clergy priests--no!  They are leaders in the church; I would hold that baptism and the Lord's Supper are sacraments of the church so it seems proper that only those who have been recognized by the church should perform them.  The clergy are a gift to the church to serve the church, not a threat to the priesthood of all believers.

3.  Some of his arguments simply do not seem to hold water.  For example,
Doesn't the body argument effectively point to divisions?  I do not see how it undermines the idea of an ordained class.

4.  In some ways, this sort of view is an idealistic, egalitarian (not the male/female sense but the societal sense) of how life can function.  From my experience, it seems that in order for something to function, someone must take charge.  Essentially, the "clergy" are those people--given by God, gifted by God, and empowered by God to do that.