significant lay participation

[cellio]

Last week one of the morning minyanaires asked if I would lead the service occasionally, and lent me a siddur when I said I needed to learn it better. (There's a big difference between being able to pray for yourself and being competent to lead a congregation.) This morning he asked how it was going ("slow progress", I said), and then he said something about me leading every Thursday (!). I said something like "let me get through it once before we schedule me for a regular slot, ok?". If I can do it correctly I would enjoy that, though.

I've been really enjoying the occasional opportunities to read Torah at my own congregation. (I almost said "periodic", but the cycle isn't regular yet.) I'm glad that we have something like ten people either reading already or interested in learning how. I think this will good for the community -- participation leads to engagement and investment.

I wonder which other religions have comparable opportunities for serious-but-not-formally-educated lay people to take on significant worship roles. My childhood congregation didn't, but that's only one data point.

(Aside: is there a better word than "lay" to describe "just plain folks" in this case?)

Comments

[kayre]

Catholicism certainly has a formal structure for lay participation, though I think use of it varies widely. One can be ordained to the rank of deacon (just short of priest) without celibacy; traditionally deacons both read Scripture in church, and do the work of the church in caring for the poor and needy of the congregation.

Methodism was originally a lay movement within the Anglican church, and still has the structure for using lay people in leadership roles. Unfortunately that mostly boils down to using lay pastors in churches too small for a full-time or even shared pastor. I've been a certified Lay Speaker myself, but sadly, folk are not very comfy with listening to a layperson when there's a "real preacher" around.

And no, I don't know of a better term.