 
**Clergy Don't Shepherd:**

**God 101**

Jesse Steele

Smashwords Edition

**Copyright © 2013 Jesse Steele**

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced for sale in any manner whatsoever without written permission of the author except in the case of brief quotations embodied in critical articles and reviews.

books.JesseSteele.com

books@jessesteele.com

Jesse Steele on Smashwords

ISBN: 978-130-194-608-2

Smashwords Edition, License Notes

For personal enjoyment only, you are welcome to share this eBook with your friends. This book may be reproduced, copied and distributed for non-commercial purposes, provided the book remains in its complete, original form. If you enjoyed this book, please return to Smashwords.com to discover other works by Jesse Steele. Thank you for your support.
**For my Grandmothers...**

**Both to the Pearl, who loved the Church,**

**And to the Entertainer, who stirred the pot**
**Table of Contents**

For my grandmothers

Introduction: Background

"Being" and "Doing" Church Always Changes

The Past: Review and Revamp

The Clerical System

What Is the Church?

Gifts of Leadership in the Church

Results

Church Laity

Church Leadership

Apostles

Concerning China

Pastors Are Very Capable

One Team, One Body, One Church

Conclusion: What Does the Future Look Like?
**Introduction: Background**

The existence of "clergy" isn't merely a topic about the Church; it's also a question about Theology Proper. How limited do we think God is? We can't understand God as long as we think we need—or that He needs—clergy. The same is true of Soteriology—Christ's work at the Cross fulfilled the need for any sort of clergy. While we need deacons and teachers and Christian fellowship, clergy are a whole different ball of wax.

The fact that clergy don't shepherd isn't merely a Christianity 101 topic; it's a God 101 topic.

I don't believe that pastors are bad people. There's a big difference between shepherds and clergy. Of course it's not easy to explain the difference to a Church that has never known Christianity apart from the clerical system, which is why I felt the need to write a book.

All through my college years at the Moody Bible Institute, and still after, I have asked myself what the Church should look like. Additionally, it grieved me that I could not have fellowship with all Christians, everywhere. Maybe that seems silly to you. Only God is omnipresent, after all. Why should I expect to have fellowship with every Christian? Nonetheless, this has always burdened me and finding a solution is one of the many things I look forward to when the Ancient of Days makes all things new.

So, desiring to have fellowship with many Christians, I drove in my car, all over the map. I visited Christian fellowships, not because of any specific problem. I merely wanted to understand other Christians and how they understood the Lord when they congregate.

The Moody Bible Institute sends their new grad school students to about three hundred different Christian ministries for this very reason—to drive home the point that there are many different ways that "work" within the single Body of Christ. After undergraduate school, I basically did the same thing, but unofficially.

I would often listen to two or even three different preachers on a weekend. And, at the time, I didn't know why I drove to see those Christians, other than that I loved them. It was similar to how Forrest Gump said, "I just felt like running!"

Over time, people asked me if something was wrong with me because I didn't stay in the same "church" every week with the same people, week after week. (For now, I'll look past their assumption a 'church' is a location, making it possible to 'stay' or not.) Though they didn't know it, that question was more discrediting to them than it was to me... You love Christians so much that you want to visit them in many locations—something must be wrong with you. That's not an idea anyone should imply, but so many do, which has deeper implications that this book aims to address.

We're all learning. I like to think that they had the best intentions in asking. Time will clarify.

Whether you agree with my choice or not, I humbly believe the experience qualifies me to say that I might know the Church better than the Church seems to know itself. Christian descriptions of other denominations would seem comical, if it were not so divisive—and those descriptions of each other are almost as inaccurate as they are identical.

Many Christians try to tell me about "those other guys"—whom I sat with the week before, and the week before that, and before that—with whom I have coffee on a regular basis, whom I have on my mobile phone's speed dial. To hear to Christians talk about each other so mistakenly, you'd never guess who they were actually talking about.

Not all experiences were bad though. I mostly remember the wonderful people I met—people in many different denominations and fellowships.

Finally, in 2009, Obama took the Presidency and I took a one-way flight to Asia two weeks later. My Church journeys in America were complete. Christians in Asia—with Asian culture to boot—made the perfect environment for digesting what I had seen for the previous two decades of my active Church life.

After a year in Asia, the idea occurred to me to write a book about my experiences. Before my father's passing, and before Brian McLaren was given the black hat, dad commented on "A New Kind of Christian" telling me, "This method of using a story to convey an idea really helps the reader understand." A month afterward, another friend told me the same thing. Those conversations, and a number of other experiences, led me to a conclusion, perhaps a sign from God: I should share bout the diversity in the Church by writing fiction—a story where Christians actually talk to each other!

I mean, after all, "Christians talking to each other" isn't something you'll find in the Theology section or in the news section or in the History section. Nope, you'll have to go to the fiction isle if you hope to read about any substantial Christian unity. Hence, my first two books were fiction, Crossroads at the Day of Bapcitost and Crossroads at the Way and Churchianity.

Considering the "play script" style of these first two books, bear in mind, in high school I cracked the code on Abbot and Costello's Who's on First. It literally came to me in a dream... They used an outline. I listened to various versions, noted cues they gave each other, and taught another thespian high school friend how to reproduce it, five minutes before the high school talent show. We won a standing ovation and the "Green Weenie" award. Few can really do a thriving, living, organic version of Abbot and Costello. Church is the same in that way.

Needless to say, my first two books used the same style. As ebooks, they are completely free, because the experience was freeing for me. They can be found most any place my other eBooks are listed.

After writing Crossroads at the Day of Bapticost, and still in Asia, I stumbled upon the "Local Church" movement founded by Watchman Nee. Because I had such a diverse and up-close-and-personal encounter with so many Christian fellowships in the American Church, LC's differences did not shock me. Actually, they were quite refreshing. For more information I urge the reader to review Christian Research Journal vol. 32, no. 6 from 2009, We Were Wrong, A Reassessment of the 'Local Church' Movement of Watchman Nee and Witness Lee. Hank Hanegraaff and the team at the Christian Research Institute did excellent work.

After a year of fellowship with local Christians in that movement, and seeing the amazing Christian lifestyle they have, some light bulbs turned on and I wrote Crossroads at the Way and Churchianity. It includes a composite character, heavily influenced by Watchman Nee, a member of the Nee family I had the privilege of meeting, and Christians from the overall movement. As Hank Hanegraff says, "Surely I disagree with them on secondary issues," but they are some of the most "exemplary" Christians one will ever meet.

I made two main observations about the Nee movement, since turned Lee movement (after Watchman Nee was imprisoned, Witness Lee took over.) The first was that they have no clergy or any kind of leader in their meetings. The second was that they do have their own very rigid Establishment. God allows His creative work to continue to exist, like a corpse, even after His Spirit leaves. He does this as a kind of test—to examine which people see something for its structure and which people see something for the Spirit that makes it thrive.

I think a big part of God's test is that, when things become as lifeless and entrenched as they do in every Establishment that follows a thriving move of God through His people, His true followers move on. They don't remain loyal to a cadaver, but they do what they must do to thrive. Nee was put out by the clerical system because he viewed it as unbiblical. I had already arrived at the same conclusion before I discovered his writings. And I can only guess that a similar conclusion drew you to read this book.

The movement founded by Nee was a significant player in the Underground Church of China and still is to this day. Under Lee's leadership, they saw conflict in America. From my diverse history with the American Church, I understood why the American Church rejected the LC movement several decades ago.

Lee was in a tough position because he was the only one to lead a large group of Christians had been effectively orphaned from their shepherd by the Communist Chinese and had been scattered like the New Testament Church, primarily to Taipei, where Hudson Taylor's family and ministry also fled, and, eventually, Anaheim, CA. Lee had a presence at Berkley. It's not uncommon for Taiwanese Christians in America to have a connection to Lee.

Part of the confusion between the shipwrecked Lee fellowship and the Establishment in the US was from lack of diplomacy (not 'political correctness', but the 'diplomacy' that wields a sharp edge in skilled hands.) Another part of it was from lack of listening before concluding. But, I knew Nee's ideas. I like Nee. Though Nee chose Lee as his successor, I don't agree with Lee's choice of unusual words, such as "becoming God" (similar to Mormon semantics) or what followed as arguably one of the worst Christian feuds the American Church has ever seen. Lee was ostracized by American Christians and published in the cult watchdog lists. Decades later, that would be retraced.

While many Christians in the movement are exemplary, the division that surrounded Lee was not. Recently, I discovered that other godly men in America came to the same conclusion decades before I did. It's funny how different Christians in different places come to the same conclusion when encountering the fellowships. After the last pen was capped in their war of ink, the American Church was introduced to Nee's books—and this made it worthwhile. And, in Lee's last public address before his passing, he apologized for the trouble he created.

So, after having introduced you to my own Crossroads in the Body of Christ, now, I want to introduce you to Watchman Nee's thesis: Eliminate the clerical system. The idea may not be what it seems on the surface. So, be open to understanding, even if you disagree in the end.

If I am wrong, then I hope you can give me a good reason why. The burden would be on you to explain why CRI was not "wrong" as they claim to be—a large task, but, as a writer, I'm always open. Many have tried to change my mind, but can't satisfy the questions. Most responses are the usual defenses, combined with Satire's "blamer mode", which, though common in American Christian feuds, is not exactly a positive credential.

It's usually best to at least understand the people we disagree with. Most Christians don't truly understand where they disagree with each other. If Christians understood where they actually disagree, they might more easily see where they agree all the more—but that requires listening and patience. Please, break the cycle. Understand first. Then decide whether or not you agree. That is Biblical, after all.

This is a book God 101—and He gives tests. I don't say this to evade important questions. I don't say this to be manipulative. Through my time with so many different Christians, all of whom love Jesus, I discovered the importance of loudly admitting both the good and the bad. The key to resolution isn't "silent division", but surgical diplomacy.

We're more likely to listen to each other when we acknowledge the regrettable things as regrettable and the good things as good. And that's the way it should be.

As for the "necessary evils" that many in the Church claim, "can't be overcome," the things which divide us may or may not be evil, but they certainly aren't necessary. Besides, Christians do not have any necessary evils; we have former evils, which Christ delivered us from, and current evils, which demand our repentance.

Lee tried to explain this as a foreigner in America. Ahh, cultural barriers! Though often soft-spoken, the Chinese are heavy handed in conflict because they aren't comfortable with it, avoiding it daily. We, in America, on the other hand, are quite comfortable with conflict because it's our daily routine from childhood—we're too comfortable with conflict, I think we're addicted.

As Americans, we love truth. We seek friends who tell us the truth when it's ugly, and we love them for it for the same reason we don't want pimples to remain on our faces—and we avoid friends who don't feel the same way.

Lee tried to address some of the greatest problems in the American Church, but he did so without the surgical people skills of Ronald Reagan and without the history of our Western value for truth in friendship. The American Church thought the Chinese Bible teacher was a cult leader. We made a snap judgment—another thing Americans are famous for, especially American Christians. In the end, as CRI said with the famous words, "We Were Wrong."

In my own words: Nee was right, Lee was wrong, and so were we.

Was Lee malicious or intentional in the division that developed on his watch? I don't know and I don't care. But I do admire him for his spite for American denominationalism. The Western Church is divided and has tolerated that division beyond what should be imaginable. Lee tried to confront it, but, in the end, he only contributed to it. I'm writing the book that he couldn't, but, hopefully, the book that he wanted to.

This book explains to the American Church why, though Lee was wrong, Nee was right: The clerical system must depart before Christ returns... and it will. But only you can decide if you'll pass the test.
**"** **Being" and "Doing" Church Always Changes**

As Christians, we are called to "be" the Church. But there is a part of "being" that requires "doing". This is a short book about the "doing" aspect of the Church. How should it function? What should the administration be?

In my experience many people, Christian and non-Christian alike, agree that some kind of change is in order concerning the way things are "done" in the Church. But we rarely agree on what those things are. The only agreement Christians seem to find in changing our systems is that we don't want to make drastic changes.

The more dramatic changes a Christian fellowship makes, the more likely the rest of the Church is to accuse that fellowship of trying to start a "cult". Soon after, the rest of the Church discovers the truth about the pioneering movement. But it doesn't happen until few decades later, when the good fruits of those controversial changes prove their Biblical origin. Then, but not before, the rest of the Church smiles. And, like a king attempting to rewrite history, everyone acts as if they were best friends all along, apologizing only where absolutely necessary... until the next change comes along in the Church. Then the cycle repeats.

This has happened with many ministries, including Willow Creek, the International House of Prayer in Kansas City, and when America was visited by a large home-church movement from the underground Church of China, the "Local Church" movement of Watchman Nee.

I don't expect the next good changes in the Church to be received any differently. But, I hope that you, the reader, are capable of being more open to change than those who have gone before us. I don't mean that we should make changes to our Biblical founding, but we must always be willing to scrap our old practices and go back to the drawing board—otherwise we won't scrap our rotten scraps when the time comes—and the time always comes, sooner or later.

Change isn't easy. Many of our practices are not found anywhere in Scripture, but, like most things we were born and raised with, we think they are Biblical. They may be very good. They may have been created by a fellowship of Christians who were following the Lord's leading to create them for a specific time in the past. But, still, those practices are not equal to Scripture. We owe it to Scripture to say, "This way of doing things has been good, but it's not found in the Bible, though we often think it is. Someday, we might need to stop doing it and do something new instead, just how this practice brought new change in its own day."

But the martyrs of Church history have shown that this is not a safe thing to say—and even more difficult to follow through on it. And I suggest that our refusal to say this when it is needed has caused many of the schisms and divisions in the Church through the last millennium and a half. God builds a temporary scaffolding, then He calls us to take it down when the construction is finished. But, instead of continuing God's construction of greater things, we cling to our old scaffolds, the Spirit moves on to the next phase, our friendships tear apart, and the Church splits once again. Beneath nearly every Church split lie the ruins of a good practice, which expired when the people's love for it did not.
**The Past: Review and Revamp**

Which are the practices that need to stay and which are those that need to go? What are the things we should change? And how deep should those changes penetrate? The point I want to make in this book is this: The biggest, deepest, most needed, and most dramatic change the Church must make is to eliminate the clerical system. But what is the clerical system?

When I tell Christian friends that the clerical system has caused problems or that it needs to be eliminated from the Church, I often get bombarded with defenses for why "pastors" are from God. Actually, that changes the subject. Pastors are from God, clergy are inherited from pagan religions.

When I try to explain that pastors and clergy are different, and that we need true Pastors, the conversation goes in any number of different directions. People start speaking as if Christ has multiple Bodies or as if there are some Christians who are not part of the universal, invisible Church. They'll say things like, "those Christians outside of the Church," or, "Christians who change between Churches." The sad thing is, I know that they think they know what they mean. But, because the understanding—that there is only one Church—has settled itself deep in my heart, to me, these saying just sound like gibberish.

By Biblical definition, Christians can't "switch churches" nor can a Christian be "churchless". Only within the clerical system can someone think that these Biblical impossibilities are possible. Which means that this sort of thinking reflects a pagan influence, or "worldly" thinking. It is no wonder the Church has hit a wall in growth in the West; the constraints of pagan thinking are no longer big enough to clothe the growing Body of Christ. So, what should we think?

Are pastors and clergy different? Is there a distinction between the two that the Church can understand? And, if there is a difference between the two, would eliminating "clergy" while keeping "pastors" be "too much" change? Maybe a better question would be: Would that change be big enough to fit the growing Body?

These questions are very relevant today. The Church is full of problems that are long overdue for being solved. While these problems are undeniable, we have neglected them long past the point when the worlds of business and government would have addressed them. Part of the reason we have neglected them is fear of not having a viable solution.

Consider the history of Microsoft Windows. Early versions of Windows, such as Windows 386 were not the most stable and compatible. Nonetheless, Microsoft continued developing until they released Windows 3.1, which was their silver bullet against IBM's OS2 in a creative, and arguably dishonest, marketing stunt from Gates.

After some tweaks, producing Windows 3.11, they reinvented desktop graphic user interfaces with Windows 95. It wasn't the most stable, though it introduced the "Start" button. Windows 98 was a substantial improvement over 95, with many of the same interfaces.

Two years later, they redesigned the appearance with Windows ME (Millennium Edition). It wasn't the most reliable, but became more stable in Windows XP.

Windows Vista, after WP, was a laughing stock and fueled some great Apple ads, such as "Choose a Vista". But, next, Windows 7 brought much of the same interface as Vista, but was stable.

At the time of first writing this book, Windows 8 met its debut with a mix of both stability and confusion. People weren't sure how to use the newer "Start menu", AKA Windows Metro. But, once again, there was already talk of replacing Metro with Windows Blue in the Windows 9 edition, which would provide a more polished and customizable interface. (Later, launch of Windows 9 was scrapped and jumped to Windows 10 after some of the "Blue" changes were implemented in Windows 8.1 and 8.2 updates.)

Microsoft seems to have a pattern: One not-so-good version, followed by a seriously improved version of nearly the same thing. In other words, Microsoft knows how to keep the good and fix their flaws. They've done it time and again.

As irritating as the blue screen of death was in the 90's and early 2000's, Windows continues to improve and, especially with the Windows phone from Nokia, Microsoft poised itself to gain back some ground, which Apple has steadily "eaten" away at over the years.

Microsoft knows how to scrap the past and improve. So do Apple and GNU-Linux. But what has happened in the Church?

Let's consider the Tea Party movement. Like it or not, agree with it or not, the Tea Party is appropriately named for its attitude, similar to that of the Boston Tea Party of 1773. To quote Howard Beal from the Oscar winning movie, Network, "I'm mad as H*ll and I'm not gonna' take this anymore!" That's what happens in every society that becomes irritated with its government. It's predictable, whether it's right or wrong.

Outcry against government is normal in Human history. But, where is the outcry against the much greater problems within the Church? (A few years after writing the first edition of this book, poking fun at 'Sunday Morning' and the term I first published, 'Churchianity', had become small, snowballing trends. So, outcry was beginning, but was still met resistance.)

George Barna has produced research materials relating to the Church for several decades. Many of his statistics and books are available at Barna.org. If you're not familiar with them, now would be a great time.

The numbers are troubling. Divorce, turning from Christ, other warning lights... It's depressing to read his numbers, but we don't need his numbers to know that there's a problem—and that's even more depressing.

When do we take responsibility, like Microsoft does, and revamp our unstable system? When do we make like disgruntled citizens and say, "I'm mad as H*aven and I'm not gonna' take this anymore!" What's the critical mass of Church problems, which introduces the determination to solve them? It almost seems as if there isn't such a point.

The absence of a demonstrable tolerance threshold in the Church suggests that our problem runs much deeper than problems with government and economics. It almost begs questions of "brainwashing"... but as I mentioned previously, we won't go there in this book. It's sufficient to say that our dedicated negligence should raise a lot of eyebrows.

When Windows and government don't work, the people call for change. That's because they want computers and governments to be sensible, stable, and allow us to do the things we need to do. But as the Church continues to demonstrate worse and worse numbers in attendance, depression, and morality, our lack of outcry suggests that these things don't matter to us. It seems that we really don't care about the things Barna researches and reports. If we did, we would have protested long before the Tea Party movement.

What does matter to Christians, then? Frankly, I'm not sure. Is it our fiefdoms? Is it our "us four and no more" clubs? Is it the annual Christmas pageant? Is it the feeling of thinking we're better than everyone else in the world who doesn't sit next to us? Is it the feeling of accomplishment we have when we "steal sheep" from "another Church"? (...even though there is only one Church and 'stealing sheep' only happens between Satan's Church and Jesus's Church, but that's another discussion.)

People only tolerate problems if they are looking for something other than solutions. We tolerate bugs on the windshield because we drive, not for the windshield, but for the destination. We dig through dirt for gold.

Whatever it is that allows us to continue using a system that is ever more in the way of the Biblical purposes and fruits of the Church, it is that thing that we are truly seeking. Perhaps that's what was really going on with the people George Barna called "Revolutionaries". Maybe the "Revolutionaries" actually expect the numbers in the Church to be good, while most "other Christians" expect something else.

Maybe the people who "left church in order to get closer to Jesus" have a different set of values than those who remain in the "church" they left. Maybe they tried to express concern, but they were accused of "complaining" by leaders who don't share the same goals. Maybe they didn't want to leave. Maybe they felt forced to leave because they believe the Church can and should improve, yet whatever groups they were apart of didn't want to improve in the least.

Admittedly, some Christian leaders are calling for some amount of change. We see much of this in the Willow Creek Association. They were willing to reinvent the way they "do" Church, even to the point of removing the greeter from the door—the number one reason that kept Christians away from church in Palatine, Illinois, as Hybels researched and reported in the 1970's.

That's pretty radical: eliminate the greeter? Even 30 years later, many congregations still wouldn't let the Zacchaeuses of the world sit in their trees from a distance. Many people want to hide in the back of the sanctuary until they learn that the Church is trustworthy. Bill Hybels allowed it and his fellowship grew.

Is it unbiblical to remove the greeter? The American Church seemed to think so.

Hybels has done many more things to alter the way we "do" Church, and, just like every good reformer, he was branded as a cult leader a few years before he was respected by the same people. The concept of "smallgroups", as we know them today, actually originated with Bill, though Bill got that idea from the New Testament model of local Christian community.

The same happened with Mike Bickle, who had another radical idea, which actually developed in a community over the course of a decade with many obedient steps of faith: We can pray night and day in the earth, just like the Angels do in Heaven, and it could improve our situation and help us grow closer to the Lord. Of course, he was branded as a cult leader as well, until people actually looked into his ministry, instead of just reading about it in the gossip columns and Christian tabloids—or "publications" as we like to call them.

Syndicated gossip in the Church shouldn't be a surprise. Some people even think NBC delivers honest and unbiased "news". Maybe the Church should read and talk about each other less and talk to each other more. But that's also another discussion beyond the scope of this book, which I address more in Know Each Other.

People resist change, but change is what the Church needs. As great as Bickle, Hybels, and other Christian leaders are in their reinvention of the "doing" aspect of the Body of Christ, the overall numbers are still in decline. And that's not because more people need to become members of WCA. And it's not because more Christians need to start houses of prayer... though those things might not be bad.

We need to reinvent at a deeper level than we have so far. The more we reinvent, the more controversial we become—and the more likely we are to get to the actual truth which sets us free. "Come to Jesus" moments are never mellow. They are a painful part of revival.

In other words, the Church needs a "come to Jesus moment" about how deep our problem actually goes. Whatever that problem is, most likely, the solution will offend our pride. If an idea doesn't offend you, then it probably can't help you either.
**The Clerical System**

The Christian Research Institute investigated, reviewed, and retracted their misinformed "cult" branding of the "Local Church" movement, founded by Watchman Nee in China. Nee's main contribution to the Church was a distinction between shepherding and the clerical system. In his book, Church Affairs, Nee explains Christian Church administration, describing the New Testament relationship between apostles, elders, and deacons.

Lee, on the other hand, is largely known for his writings about theology, which the American Church took exception to. While Lee was controversial for attempting to rewrite theology dating back to the early Church Councils, Nee was controversial for explaining the problem of the clerical system, specifically. Both men were controversial, but concerning entirely different topics.

Reading Nee is almost like reading the US Constitution, though it is less wordy and obviously written from a perspective of Chinese culture. He is plain and broad-scope. Some of his statements may seem more absolute in the English translation than he actually intended them to be. But, especially for Americans, Nee is refreshing and his definition of an "apostle" should prove palatable for both Baptists and Pentecostals.

The term "apostle", in most of the Western Church, has had an unspoken connotation, a subtle vibe, silently suggesting something like "super Bishop". I believe that, because Nee had shepherds who were not clergy, his working definition of an "apostle" was free of this inaccurate, overshadowing, and super-esteemed stigma accompanied by the word "apostle" when used within the context of the clerical system. Not having this stigma, Baptists and Pentecostals, both, should find Nee's working definition of the term "apostle" much less anxiety-stricken and much more "simple-Biblical".

But what is this clerical system I keep referring to?

When I first stumbled upon the movement in Asia, and they talked about the problem with the "clerical system", it took time for me to even understand what they were referring to. It may take you time as well. I was already dissatisfied with the declining state of things in the Church and our obsession with mandating Sunday morning. So, I was ready to hear what they had to say.

The clerical system might be best described by what it is not. The Local Church (LC-Nee or LC-Lee, the same fellowship network, but named differently depending on our emphasis of the different leaders) is very unusual. For instance, I can't rightly call them a "denomination" because their administrative ties from one city to another are not official, they are merely social-organic. And this is quite Biblical.

They have no holding company and no branding that could be attacked by a hostile takeover, such as we might see on Wall Street. Since they are loosely affiliated, it would be difficult to sue the movement because they are like an unofficial LLC. "It is what it is" and nobody is sure what to call it.

They know who their elders are, but you'll only ever hear them talk about how "we are all brothers and sisters". You might hear some people say, "He is a responsible brother, but we are all brothers." There are certainly no titles such as "Pastor John" or "Elder Doe". Jesus told us not to do that, after all.

What a concept, eh? "Do" Church the way the Bible tells us to? It must be a "cult"... at least that's what we tend to think of things that violate our superstitions, especially when sin, finally, makes our errors so clear that we have learned from culture more than Scripture. "Cult"... "culture"... hmmm...

LC-Nee meetings have no Master of Ceremonies. No one calls them to order, except at large conferences when 20,000 people need someone to tell them that it's time to sit down. Even then, the person who calls the arena to order will quickly step away and, possibly, never be seen on the platform again. Weekly meetings are called "Lord's Table meetings" in honor of Scriptural terms. And these meetings are completely run by everyone in the room—literally everyone. Anyone can suggest a song. Then, the skilled piano player will lead the song spontaneously. If people want to sing it again, someone will say so and they sing it again. After singing, they each share for a few moments from whatever the Lord put on their hearts during the previous week.

Even the youth are solid in their Biblical knowledge and their ability to discern. And, though they have local leaders to oversee the overall direction of their city-wide association of meetings, they do it by sharing administrative power with everyone. "Heavy-handed" is a term that would never cross your mind when you attend a meeting.

They are open to all Christians. They aren't territorial. They don't scorn you if you don't give money regularly. They identify themselves as "The Church of [whatever city or region]" and nothing more. This is from the New Testament terminology of identifying the Church.

(Unfortunately, in order to be fair and maintain credibility, I have to report the not-so-fun side of some things. Here I am, recommending that the Western Church abandon the clerical system they have had for almost 2,000 years, primarily arguing from Scripture, secondarily arguing from the experience of a significant segment of the Chinese Church. I owe it to the readers to give a full story about that segment of the Chinese Church. If I ever see that LC-Lee has dropped the nomenclature of "becoming God" out of respect for the Church's ecumenical nomenclature from before "the denominations" emerged or that they generally, not through only two individuals, seek inroads to non-conversion fellowship with other ministries in the West, I will edit and update this book appropriately. What I am explaining is simply my experience because I want to be informative concerning a movement largely unknown by the Western Church. My position on LC-Lee remains mostly positive, while I, like Hank Haanegraff, clearly disagree with them about secondary issues.)

What I am about to tell you has existed and been challenged for decades and I have discussed it with many members of the movement. Some of the oldest members who worked alongside Witness Lee have largely agreed with this following critique. So, let's get through this so we can move on to better things...

For the most part, they don't demonstrate much effort in holding fellowship with other Christians in "the denominations" as they call them. If you suggest visiting a Baptist gathering on Sunday morning, you might get looked at as if you have green antennae protruding from your head or someone may say, "We have two, specific brothers who handle that." (I have been told many times that the number is 'two'.)

In their Church history museum in Taipei, which you must visit if you can, they go through Jan Huss, Luther, and end with Witness Lee front and center. They say nothing about the prayer and missions movement of the 20th and 21st centuries. And, as far as I have seen, they in the Far East have no support for Israel—just another country to them. If crossed, they can swarm and light as Lee demonstrated, a pattern which has not entirely vanished, especially among older members. Even in America they can be very isolationist, possibly coming across as mild Mennonites. Many among them believe that Jesus's "mustard seed" parable is negative because a tree attracts "birds", which they say are only bad, and that all other parables in the context are negative just the same.

At conferences, they talk about missions in "the Church", but say nothing about evangelism in "the denominations". They teach that we "become God" in fellowship and nature and the like, "not in headship", which, in English, means that we do not "become God". CRI has reviewed their definition and found no problem with their meaning. I independently arrived at the same conclusion. They cite 2 Peter 1:4 as "partakers in divine nature" to justify this term, though Peter does not say, "become God." I think "becoming God" is "Chinglish" because the "being" verbs in Chinese lend themselves to wider interpretation. Chinese theology, however, may best be written in Chinese.

The term "becoming God" is unnecessary as it is dangerous. They deafly insist on clinging to this term "man shall become God", which is not found in the Bible, which, at face value runs contraire to the Bible, while defining the term Biblically in their long papers, even though the term is used by actual cults, and even though it keeps them isolated from the West.

While they criticize the West for divisive denominations, they do not esteem the language of the Church Fathers and the four ecumenical councils—some of the little remaining common ground on which the Western denominations find unity. Their isolated confidence is mistaken by the West as the behavior of a "cult", though, it more or less reflects classic Han imperialism from ancient China, which the similarly isolated American Church did not recognize.

Cultural baggage dies hard in every hemisphere. That's why fellowship must be a priority. For the West, fellowship is becoming more of a priority. For the most part, with LC-Lee, it is demonstrably among the lowest priorities. That is an example not to follow, which means that the West must follow LC-Lee's good example to abandon the clerical system so we can more effectively reach out to each other.

Some of their working members walked past my home once and were friendly, but would not discuss the need for Christian unity. Bear in mind, they approached me on the street, recognizing me from meetings, and knowing where I live. After two minutes of urging them to have fellowship with Christians outside of their own meetings, one of their leaders shouted me down in a one-on-one conversation and loudly announced, "You have talked and now it is my turn to talk. I invite you to our meeting this week at 7:30," then left. A friend attended that same weekly meeting. That friend later told me, "Yes, they don't have one pastor. Instead, everyone is a pastor." While they don't have clergy, I know exactly what he means.

I have been to many of their meetings. One time, one of their members had an informal Bible study in his home, which I participated in until a strange change was made. The local elders decided that the unofficial meeting in a home should be moved to one of the buildings they own so it could fall under their oversight. A staff member managed the meeting start to finish. The hosts did not attend. Topics and members were completely different. The meeting had been effectively taken over and disbanded. Sound familiar, West?

They haven't asked for a follow-up on my concerns about not being isolated from the West. They haven't asked for introductions to any "denominations", though there are many right in their vicinity. But they still invite people in my neighborhood to their 7:30 meetings. The intense focus during their invitations, combined with the rigidness of the near-identical mid-week meetings, and being attended by people who have other meetings closer to their homes—it almost has an "Amway" vibe to it. It's not a cult, but it could seem that way to Americans who don't talk with them long enough to figure that out. By those standards, however, if LC-Lee is a cult, then so is Western Churchianity's Sunday morning—but I don't think so.

I once sat with one of their national-level elders who insisted that New Jerusalem was only an allegory. Not believing my ears, I wanted to know if he really believed this, but I could not get him to agree that New Jerusalem would, one day, become physically visible—not even at any point in the future of all Eternity would he agree that New Jerusalem would be physically visible and recognizable as John describes it. It's ironic, they criticize the West for "identifying themselves" with controversial doctrines, yet they seem to hold to allegorical Amillennialism... which sits alongside Premillennialism and other controversial doctrines.

It seems strange, but I was equally shocked. They truly fail to understand that many of their own views are coterminous with some views among the Western denominational debates, which they criticize the West for even having in the first place. They are ignorant of the hypocrisy. I think this mostly comes from them being so isolated from the West. It's hard to blame them for isolating themselves. The alternative was to be influenced by our American infighting. They don't have infighting like the West does, praise Jesus.

But their level of ignorance about how their own isolationism is a near replica of the West is very much the same of Western denominations' ignorance of each other up to the start of the 21st century. Ignorance of each other is usually the source of our division, which all of the Church is guilty of. We need fellowship, which is why I was glad to take the time to have fellowship with LC-Lee.

Later, I unintentionally predicted that same elder's calendar, that he would return in five months to the city I lived in and requested an audience with him to talk about reaching out to "the denominations" when he did. Incidentally, he returned five months later! I discovered this when I was meeting with a friend in the LC-Lee fellowship discussing the importance of reaching out to "the denominations". "Yes, you must talk to [that elder]," he shouted. That friend promptly called the elder on the phone, who answered, then promptly refused to meet, even though he had five months notice. That was about three years ago and I feel released by Matthew 18 to inform readers about these things, not to scorn, but because, as a writer, I must be forthcoming about my experiences.

Of course, I will be forthcoming about good examples I give when I recommend sweeping changes to the Church. I will not name names nor call for specific action against anyone or any group in particular. I will not make people into celebrities nor will I name names without specific permission, except when quoting known leaders about non-reproachable statements. But, in person, I will take the role of an honest writer: You decide, I report.

(Note on reporting: I will only be so forthcoming about matters on the condition that others have a serious need to be informed, that they are not already largely informed, and that I have had extended, in-person fellowship with those involved. I will only be so thorough if I am already holding that someone or some group up as mostly an example to follow, as I am here with LC-Lee, they are mostly exemplary, and that the problem has been neglected and solutions rejected for a long period of time, both in my own experience and beyond.)

In this book, I am esteeming the Western Church, citing the problem of the clerical system, which is the greater criticism. I am not trying to sell LC-Lee. Though I hold esteem for LC-Lee, knowing that no one is perfect, but celebrating the fact that they have translated the Bible into countless languages and led millions of people to Jesus.

I think LC-Lee was a better option for Asian missions than American missionaries. American missions to Asia have often resulted in sectarianism by congregation (literally believing that every pastor except theirs is wrong) and a gospel that is more watered-down than America's "seeker-sensitive" critics could fathom. I have seen "evangelism" meetings in Asia with a series of secular rock music performances, with the one-minute conclusion from the pastor that this proves that Jesus is the Lord. By contrast, LC-Lee members know their Bible well and can defend and explain the faith better than many American Christians. And they are very effective at street evangelism.

Once, after a chapel at Moody, I briefly sat with Joseph M. Stowell Sr., former president of the Southern Baptist Convention. A busy man of 92, I humbly asked him for any words of wisdom. He said, "If people are coming to know Jesus, you can't argue with that. People can complain about your clothes and the curtains, but if people are coming to know Jesus, they can't argue with that." The most important thing about any Christian fellowship is that they do the service of John the Baptist: Point people to Christ. LC-Lee and the West both do this. For this, no one can cast either of them out nor say that they have failed in the Great mission Jesus gave His Church.

The problems that Walter Martin and CRI had with Witness Lee and the Nee movement were not without reason. For these and similar reasons, they tend to be rightly viewed as more or less "separatist" and divisive. Merely by referring to "the denominations" as being different from themselves makes them a de facto denomination.

But, there is a lot that the "Local Church" movement of Watchman Nee and Witness Lee can and should teach the West. Among those exemplary lessons—they don't operate with the clerical system that the West views as so essential; and they thrive as a result. CRI has thoroughly reviewed them and found them to be doctrinally sound. And, though they seem unwilling to reach out to us, probably for fear of another fight, perhaps we should tear down our own barriers, reach out to each other, then reach out to them in gratitude. If we drop our unbiblical clerical system, they may be willing to drop their unbiblical term, "becoming God".

LC-Lee has proven that we can make these changes I am recommending to the Western Church. They don't put any special name on their fellowship halls. They try to remain simple. And they do this very well. Many of them are extremely wealthy. In America, they tend to attract people in the medical and legal fields. I have the honor of knowing one emergency room doctor who works three days per week, teaches Greek and Hebrew the rest of the week, knows 20 languages and counting, and travels monthly to teach Greek and Hebrew to Christians in countries that do not have a Bible translation. I have had none of my sad experiences with him, which I can also say of many others.

This movement, in all of its Human flaws, yet mostly loveable, is a living testimony to the fact that clergy are absolutely unnecessary. They prove to achieve the educational goals of the clerical system, while operating without that system. In fact, maintaining this testimony may be part of God's purpose in allowing them to remain, as they may be viewed, "separatist"... at least until Jesus lands.

There is much more good about the Nee movement, too much to put in a book, but I'll try to share some. Though CRI's cult watchdog lists resulted in many of them being imprisoned, where many of them died, they have responded to the West with compassion and forgiveness. A relative of Nee, who knew Nee before he was imprisoned, said, "I've met Hank Haanegraff. He's a great guy."

Furthermore, they are incredibly hospitable people. When I had no place to live, they invited me to live with them for a summer. It was an amazing experience where I saw their flaws and strengths and their great love for each other, for Jesus, and even outsiders like me. This makes it painful for me to tell some of the sad stories for fear of the reader getting the wrong impression. I have told what I have, not to say that LC-Lee is wrong, but that we are all works in progress—and we can all learn from each other while we are still works in progress.

So, why did Watchman Nee get started on his own movement in the first place? A living relative of Watchman Nee explained to me that names of the Church was Nee's primary reason for leaving the clerical system. "The Church is the Bride of Christ. You don't put your name on someone else's Bride," many have told me. It's the Church, and that's it! Secondarily, Nee left because of the point-man-leader "clerical" administration used in the Western Church.

We usually call that point-man-leader a "pastor", although a true and Biblical pastor doesn't need to be a point-man-leader. Roman Catholics call him a "priest". We can call the clergy whatever we want, but when the fellowship is organized for people, the organizers are clergy.

LC-Nee meets without such single point-person leaders. For that, they have what I call "shepherds who are not clergy". I won't distract further with smaller disagreements, particularly where Lee's contribution may be concerned. But the stability of the movement, the 2 million Christians they mentor worldwide, their continued growth, their healthy throughout Southeast Asia, their absolute dedication to the Great Commission, and their work in Bible translation—all these things demonstrate growth and strength concerning the very fruit that Barna keeps reporting is on decline in the West. If Barna's numbers disturb you at all—and I'm disturbed if they don't disturb you—then the non-clerical system introduced by Watchman Nee cannot be ignored.
**What Is the Church?**

God's Church is universal with many expressions of local ministries and fellowships. Each city or region has only ONE Body of Christ, as recognized in Heaven. This is demonstrated by the New Testament names for the Church, both as defined by the NT apostles as well as the Lord Jesus Himself when He addresses the Seven Assemblies in Revelation 1-3.

A local ministry can be any of many things—a soup kitchen, an orphanage, a free medical clinic, a Sunday morning congregational fellowship, a school or college that teaches Bible or music, a rehab center, etc. These organizations have been both a blessing and a force of destruction. Life in this age isn't perfect. Nor are the things we do. The same is true of these expressions. Few people, if any, dispute that fact in itself.

These organizations may be wonderful, they may be terrible, but God's Church is _universal_. No matter how good an organization is, it's not the Church. No matter how bad it is, don't blame it on the Church.

These organizations are not 100% of the Church, but, hopefully, they are, themselves, operated 100% by Christians of the Church. Unfortunately, non-Christians can easily end up in positions of "Christian leadership" and, most of the time, nobody knows it. But, by definition, this cannot happen to the true Church; it can only happen to _ministry expressions of the Church._ _Whatever an organization is is, if a non-Christian can lead it even on accident, it_ _cannot possibly_ _be_ _the Church._

In other words, congregational ministries, often led by clergy (usually with the title Priest or Pastor, depending on the denomination,) are not the Church, they are _para-Church._

Para-Church is great and arguably necessary. We often think of missions agencies, soup kitchens, and Christian schools as being "para-Church" ministries. In that much, we are accurate. But, when we confuse para-Church with Church, the administrative creation of our own hands occupies a special place in our hearts and our love becomes confused just the same. By believing that clergy-led fellowships are the Church, we create a half-true false religion, which I think is best called _Churchianity._

Christianity is the idea of belief in Christ. It's a simple matter of etymology: Christ – ianity. But, many things from Churchianity have been done in the name of Christianity. As a result, Christ and Christians have been given a bad name.

Some people try to address the bad rap Jesus and Christians have. They use political correctness—attempting to create change by finding a new name for what has been misunderstood. They'll say, "I'm not a Christian, I'm a follower of Jesus." But _Christians_ and _followers of Jesus_ are one-in-the-same, even if we don't understand that they are. The same is true of "Belief in Christ" and "Christianity".

It is our responsibility to reclaim the good terms we have and create "impostor" terms for things which are phony. Esteeming the clergy more than we ought—justifying one man's unusual power over other Christians by calling him a "pastor" or "shepherd"—does no more good than China ability to create freedom by calling itself a "People's Republic" or than Kim Jong Il's ability to prove himself as loving by giving himself the title "Dear Leader".

The source of Churchianity's problem stems from this confusion between pastors and clergy. The word "pastor" comes from "pasture" or "shepherd". It is, mostly, an English invention. Greek was the language New Testament readers used to understand the truth. Greek only has "shepherds". Thus, so does the Bible. The job description of "clergy" and "shepherds" are entirely different.
**Gifts of Leadership in the Church**

Ephesians 4:11 is often used to defend the idea that "pastor=clergy". I encourage Greek students to get Kittle's dictionary and review his comments about the word for "shepherd" and Ephesians 4:11. I'll try to explain it here, in English, as best as I can.

In Greek, there is an expression, men-de. It's like saying, "On the one hand..." (men) "...but on the other..." (de). Paul uses the men-de pattern in Eph 4:11 to list four spiritual callings, given by God Himself. Many English translations don't convey the men-de pattern and translate it as _five_ callings, applying the word "pastor" instead of "shepherd". This would be similar to translating John 10:11 as Jesus saying, "I AM the Good Pastor, the Good Pastor gives His life for the sheep." It would miss the point entirely. Paul wanted to communicate the idea of a "shepherd".

At the end of the passage, in Greek, is the word kai, which typically means "and", similar to how, in English, _and_ can mean any of: and/or, and/but, and/also, etc. Kai is not a part of the men-de expression. Kai and men-de are completely different ways of listing things. Paul uses both expressions in Eph 4:11 because he describes two separate concepts. Here is my best layman's explanation in English, using men, de, and kai...

Ephesians 4:11 in layman's _Greeklish_...

"Just as God gave some to be men apostles, de prophets, de evangelists, de shepherds kai teachers."

The main items in the list are preceded by the Greek words men and de. Kai links "shepherds" and "teachers" within the last item of the men-de list. Hopefully you can see that it is best to translate "shepherds _kai_ teachers" with a hyphen, _shepherd-teachers_ _or_ _shepherds-and-teachers._ _This results in..._

"Just as God gave some as apostles, others prophets, others evangelists, and others shepherd-teachers."

(This is not word-for word, but it helps carry the richness of meaning form Greek to English.)

Paul liked to invent words. And that's what he's doing in Eph 4:11 with "shepherd-teacher". Any New Testament reference to a _shepherd_ carries a memory of Jesus, the Good Shepherd. When Paul says _shepherd-teachers,_ he is trying to give us a picture of the shepherd-like manner that Jesus always used in teaching. It was unusual. People weren't sure how to explain it. There wasn't a word for it, just as Jesus often did stuff beyond our poor words to describe, which is why we tell so many stories about Jesus to this day. Basically, Paul is describing what we, today, often think of as _disciple makers._

As I understand, Kittle, for the most part, says the same thing. Paul was referring to the similar teaching style of the "Good Shepherd".

Rather than saying "shepherd-teacher" all the time, the word "pastor", being an English invention, is suitable. Paul was being inventive. We can be also... So, let's keep it: A shepherd-teacher is a _pastor._

So, how does Ephesians 4:11 relate to the subject of "doing" Church? It means that a _pastor_ is already defined in the New Testament—and a pastor in the New Testament is not the pastor job we have today.

Paul did not write, "shepherd-teacher-professor-professional-CEO." He wrote, "shepherd-teacher." A pastor is NOT defined as a lecturer, administrator, or professional. It's an organic and unofficial role in the Body of Christ. And it's very different from a clergyman.

Think about it. We have no good basis for defining a pastor the way we do. The term pastor (AKA shepherd-teacher) is unique. It was new at the time Paul wrote to Ephesus and it's unusual if used in contexts other than the Church.

When we use new or unusual words, we must define them. If we don't define them specifically, we'll assume our own meaning. That's what most of the Western Church has done when they assume that _pastor_ means clergy, rather than shepherd-teacher-disciple-maker. In Greek, the meaning is self-defined. But, by inventing a word in English, the meaning needs to be defined elsewhere.

You may know the saying, "A sweater without sleeves is a vest." This refers to the fact that, no matter what we call something, it is what it is. _If it quacks, it's a duck._ There isn't a difference between _a sweater without sleeves_ and _a vest,_ even if we don't want to call it a _vest._ _This is what it means for something to be_ _de facto._

Many times, governments will do something without admitting that they are doing it. This is often referred to as de facto law. If you're not familiar with the term de facto, breeze over the Wikipedia article here before continuing.

Pastors are given by God, but the Western Church, for over a thousand years, "ordained" people as "pastors" the clerical system. So, which is it? Are "pastors" appointed and removed by God or by the Church?

By allowing the clerical system to run local congregational ministries, and calling those man-made organizations _Church_ rather than _para-Church_ , _pastors_ in the Western Church, we assume a de facto function, which is strikingly resemblant of Roman Catholic Priests. This has all the problems of depression and corruption that Martin Luther confronted five centuries ago.

Though our de facto definition of a pastor is not exactly the same as a Catholic priest, it is much closer to a Catholic priest than it is to a shepherd-teacher-disciple-maker. Arguably, a Protestant "pastor" has more unquestioned power within his own congregation than the Pope does in the Catholic Church. Of course we don't do this intentionally.

This is why our words must be defined—to avoid unintended, de facto rules. For example, the US Constitution gives a title, e.g. "Congress", but then spends several sections and clauses defining it. Paul uses the word "pastor" or "shepherd-teacher" in Ephesians, but there is nothing that paints a picture of the clerical, executive, monologue methods, that dominate Christian fellowship time in Churchianity.

Instead, the Greek carries a reference to the "Shepherd" of the New Testament, pointing to Jesus with twelve smelly teenagers. John even lays his head on Jesus's chest at the last supper—see how that would fly in modern Churchianity! Jesus would have been investigated by Protective Services. But it made perfect sense to the New Testament audience: Paul, by saying "shepherd-and-teacher" is implying that "pastor" must be defined by the organic, informal leadership of Christ, described through the events of the four gospels. Can a modern "pastor of a congregation" recline on the floor with teenagers laying on him at dinner?

We are well aware that the Biblical view of a "pastor" is nothing like we know it today, even though we misapply Scripture verses to defend the clerical system. Ephesians 4:11 never defines _pastor_ as being the title of a position within an administrative hierarchy. We merely assume that is what the word pastor means in the Bible because that is what the word pastor always meant to us.

Despite this, NO statements of faith, none of the seven Church Councils, neither the Moody Bible Institute nor most other Christian schools—none of these ever use any written work or creed to define pastors as being clergy. No ECT or Promise Keepers or other broad-scope theology documents make a mandate for a "clerical system" as opposed to the NT assumption of what "shepherd" meant. The Western Church's de facto "working definition", that a pastor is a clergyman, is universally unwritten as it is assumed, without any good reason for being so.

I'm not attacking Christianity in explaining this. We need the Church, but we need it to be Biblical. I will clarify some important matters you may be curious about, later in this book. But, for now, step back and re-evaluate the great extent to which we in the West have not only leaped to our conclusions about God's plan for His Church, we have pole-vaulted to our conclusions.

Think of the ramifications of how we have been doing things. For instance, if Ephesians 4, all by itself, justifies this Western-invention of " _clergy_ _called_ _Pastor",_ then, according to that same passage, we are lacking several other titles. We don't have titles in the Church of "Apostle Mike" or "Teacher Robert" or "Evangelist Jim" or "Prophet Greg". But if those other callings are nameless and formless in their work, having no such titles nor non-Biblically defined positions of administration, then so ought pastors be so nameless and formless in their organic service in the Church.

If we're going to use non-Biblical definitions with _pastors_ , using Ephesians 4:11 to rationalize our inventions, then we must use that non-Biblical approach consistently, with the rest of the callings listed Ephesians 4:11. We must then use all of the gifts as institutional titles, inventing our own arbitrary definitions for each of them, or we shouldn't use any of them this way. But, instead, we pick and choose to our liking; we use the term "pastor" as a job title, but not "apostles", "prophets", or "evangelists".

To be consistent, the Church must either abandon the system that defines _pastor_ as _clergy_ or else we must start calling people "Apostle Mike" or "Teacher Robert" or "Evangelist Jim" or "Prophet Greg", and allowing people to define apostle, teacher, evangelist, and prophet however they want, with no obligation to base those definitions in Scripture. That would be consistent with the precedent set by our current, so-called "Biblical" rationalization for the clerical system.
**Results**

The unspoken rule of the clerical system is, "You don't love Jesus very much if you don't come here every week, join fellowship that we manage, and give us your money." Professional clergy always imply this in their messages and policies. Sometimes they say it outright, most of them don't mean any harm. Though rarely intentional, it is always implicit.

As a result, Christians believe it, then they do it. And then, those who attend Sunday morning congregations rarely visit other Sunday morning fellowships. Their weekly meetings have a well-coordinated time-conflict, almost as if it were some sort of "conspiracy" so that Christians at different fellowships will never talk to each other, but always misunderstand each other. They can't share Christian ideas with other Christians in other fellowships, but they write critical books about each other without weekly fellowship. They don't go to the same smallgroups, but they talk about other smallgroups.

Because these weekly fellowships meet at about the same time, Sunday morning, Christians are forced into choosing only one such fellowship to attend regularly. If they visit multiple fellowships, they're accused of not loving Jesus as much as they could. Is it any wonder that Christians fight among each other so much?

And why does this happen? We see the word "pastor" in our English translations, then dogmatically swallow whatever conjured definition of "pastor" gets handed to us in our early Sunday school years. Then we dogmatically swallow whatever a "pastor" tells us—including the idea that, if we do what is required to understand other Christians, then we don't really love Jesus.

Much division of Christian fellowship begins with division in the Christian calendar. The division of calendars would not be so prevalent if Christians were encouraged to mix with other fellowships. So, why don't they?

Follow the money—if clergy encouraged Christians to mix with multiple fellowships throughout the week, it would likely cost them their very sources of income. "Who do you give your money to?" is the silent question lingering in the background of Christians "visiting other churches", though it doesn't need to linger at all. Money isn't the stated reason the clergy give for the strategically engineered Sunday morning scheduling conflict, but money remains within their prerogatives, nonetheless.

The calendar division only has power to divide Christian fellowships because the non-Biblical, clerical system introduces territorial-financial prerogatives into the Church. This doesn't indicate greed as much as it indicates a failing strategy. Large companies that have failed to change with the times may seek backdoor government contracts or try leveraging their power to force outdated products onto a market. While greed can always be a factor, the bigger problem is that money wouldn't be a problem if our methods weren't broken. In this case, the broken method is the clerical system.

Another problem relates to Christians' ability to communicate the Bible. Because the clergy dominate fellowship time with a monologue every week, Christians don't have the opportunity to practice public speaking. They don't have the benefit of candid feedback about things they would otherwise share at a gathering. And they don't feel the obligation to research Scripture for something they might share at a local gathering because they probably won't share anything anyway.

The result of the weekly monolog has the same effect as a filibuster in Congress: the House remains divided and fewer things get accomplished by the people.

A clergyman is esteemed as "worthy" to filibuster the Christian meeting because, "After all, he went to seminary..." This cultivates an attitude that he is somehow "closer to God". People assume that his "permission" to teach from Scripture, in and of itself, makes his ideas more valuable than the ideas of other Christians.

The weekly monolog tradition dates back to the medieval times, when most people were illiterate. The Pilgrims, however, taught their children to read so they could read the Bible. They sailed on the Mayflower to escape the religious control of Europe's clergy. This newfound ability to study the Bible removed the need for clergy in the first place, though the American colonies did not remove their outdated traditions. While having a few years of Bible school is valuable, it doesn't mean that everyone in the room should shut up.

The medieval tradition of Sunday morning monologs have outlived their initially good purpose. But, because the Church hasn't changed, our old childhood clothes have become shackles.

The problem, here, is not about the ongoing need for diligence and meditation on God's Word, but the esteemed clerical position over others. It develops a superstitious attitude toward the clerical "Pastor", rather than teaching in humility, service, and equal value of all God's growing children. Everyone should study the Bible more to understand it more, the Sunday morning monolog filibusters the best time for doing so.

In the clerical system, the speaker isn't merely someone who studies the Bible a lot, just like most of the other people in the room. Rather, clergy are esteemed as better, more qualified teachers, merely for being clergy. If it were not for this, then at least half of the Christians attending weekly fellowships would be expected to teach for two or three minutes at every weekly gathering. That's what LC-Nee does because they don't have clergy—and their numbers are opposite the disturbing numbers Barna reports about the American Church.

We must study Scripture diligently. If we meditate on Scripture more and study it more and obey it, we will know it better and better with time. But this is the only reason one person may know Scripture better than others. Knowledge about God comes from diligence and obedience, not from being a _Pastor_ or _clergy_ or from being on the payroll of Christian tithing or having permission to lecture everyone for 40 minutes every week. But the clerical system does not make this distinction and even cultivates the seeds of misunderstanding about this matter.

This makes people feel less worthy of God's love, less capable of Christian ministry, less capable of understanding His Word, and it slows the work of the Church. Christians bicker and divide. Christians aren't as confident about the Bible because, since there are so few teachers who are as qualified as the special person who filibusters every weekly meeting, many questions go unanswered. This is the source of "doubts" about belief in Jesus. Young adults don't get answers to tough questions because their parents are not practiced in giving answers or understanding issues that the _pastor_ always understood for them.

The clerical system is dangerous because the clerical pastor occupies space and, thus, whether he intends to or not, takes power from the people.

An old, and I argue artificial, question in recent decades has been about women in ministry. How can we address the question of whether men or women should be "pastors"? Remove clergy, then it's no longer a problem. But if we remain in the clerical system, all kinds of problems arise that we would not have otherwise.

These sad things result, not from any intention or specific goals of Christian leaders, but merely from the system itself. The way to remove doubt, depression, division, and confusion from Christian youth isn't with more "tough questions, tough answers" genre among Christian books, but by eliminating the clerical system, which cultivated the doubt and depression and division and confusion in the first place. As long as the _pastor_ is touted as _the smartest guy in the room,_ rather than a _Shepherd_ and a _teacher_ mixed together in one, the Church will continue to produce the ugly statistics that George Barna continues to publish month after month.

Some may say that it is arrogant to claim that this system of clergy is _Satanic._ But, Jesus said we shall know them by their fruit. If these ugly results in the Church are not pleasing to Satan, then I don't know what would please Satan. Satan may not have invented the clerical system, but, if he didn't, he probably wishes he had, and he probably takes the credit among those who worship him because of the evil brilliance of the clerical system's ability to both deceive and destroy.

This destructive system of clergy fits perfectly with Satan's plan and has built many demonic strongholds—more strongholds than ostensibly built by Ouija boards or Dungeons and Dragons. It has encouraged more sorrow than Hollywood, contributed to more immorality than MTV, and silenced more good people than legalized abortion.

When a system doesn't achieve its stated goals, that system should be replaced. What is the clerical system? First and foremost, it is a system that fails at its stated goals and must be replaced. Secondly, it is a system that has "Satan" written all over it. Thirdly, it is a system filled with good people who are every bit as dependent on it as they are damaged by it and equally in denial of how much damage it does. Fourthly, the clerical system is so fragile, all it would take to eliminate it is for people to think independently. Dogma doesn't come from the clerical system; the clerical system comes from dogma.
**Church Laity**

D. L. Moody founded the Moody Bible Institute to create "gap men". He firmly believed that good Bible teaching should be available to everyone, but he saw a knowledge gap between the preachers and the laity and wanted to bridge this gap.

There seems to be a tension between the fact that it takes time to understand Scripture and the fact that everyone should be able to understand it. God gave instructions about this in his message to Joshua: Meditate on this book day and night, then you will obey it, then you will prosper, then you will have success (Josh 1:8). The fruits of Life in God begin with meditating on His Word and that is something everyone is capable of.

Some people spend more time meditating on Scripture than others. So, some people will be more equipped to preach, teach, and lead in the Church than others. We can respond to this difference two ways: 1. We can say, "See, these people know more than the laity. Therefore, the laity should be quiet and let those with more knowledge do the talking." Or 2. we can do what Moody did—try to bridge that gap and raise up everyone in the Church to be able to understand Scripture.

Of these two reactions, the first is the mode of operation that was common throughout the history of the Roman Catholic Church. It's the unspoken rule of the clerical system, which governs nearly all of the Western Church today. The second response served the original purpose of the Moody Bible Institute and was at the heart of Watchman Nee's passion, as well as the passion of Godly men like William Tyndale and Martin Luther.

God's House is open to all people. As the Angel said to the shepherds on the night of Christ's birth, "I bring good news for all people." The Lord says in Isaiah 56:7, "My house shall be called a House of Prayer for the people." Heaven doesn't speak to us as if only a few people can understand—as if everyone else is too stupid to hear from the Lord—as if the laity has to shut up and listen to only a few speakers week-to-week. Though we don't express this idea using those words, this has been the hidden disgruntlement in the Church since Christ's work at the Cross ripped open the temple curtain and the power-broker teacher-leaders lost their vice on the masses.

Yes, there is such a thing as Bible literacy. The solution is to bridge that gap, not compensate for the barrier. We not only see "gap bridging" ministry in Bible training, we also see it in Bible translation. Tyndale said that even the plowboys should be able to understand the Bible. For this, Tyndale was burned alive by the clergy of his day.

Essentially, there are two kinds of Bible teachers: Those who express ideas that seem complicated to the laity (usually in vain hopes of 'lifting' the laity's knowledge) and those who believe that everyone can understand more about God, right where they are.

Some people will always know more about some things than other people. The clerical system, whether intentionally or not, depends on that knowledge gap being bridged by a narrow toll way or by ferry franchises, usually with the old monopoly leverage known as "accreditation". Shepherd-teachers, by contrast, build as many bridges as possible, as wide as possible, and teach as many people as possible to do the same.

This knowledge gap is what Paul referred to when, in 1 Cor 2:1-6, he explained that he did not pontificate about profound and complex mysteries when he was with the people. It was somewhat of a rebuttal to Gorgian Sophism. Unlike Gorgias, Paul delivered his public speeches in a way that was simple, humble, plain, and he even trembled.

This knowledge gap between preachers and laity keeps true shepherd-teachers awake at night—many of them pastors, many of them not. It's one of the first things shepherd-teachers think of when they wake up in the morning: How can I help my friends understand the Bible so they can do more of the talking?

This describes the good Sunday morning pastors who feel a constant distance between themselves and the people they lead. It describes Bible study leaders and ad hoc mentors whom people go to for guidance. The shepherd-teachers feel that there's something more to the "doing" aspect of Church, but they haven't discovered what that "something" is.

I recommend this solution to the knowledge gap: First distinguish between "clergy" and "pastors". Return to the New Testament way of "doing" Church.
**Church Leadership**

Another way to describe the clerical system is through the myth of King Arthur. Arthur supposedly pulled a sword out of a stone, proving that he was called by Heaven to be the rightful king. There were alternate stories to the sword in the stone, but they all surrounded his rule with a mystical and supernatural aura. That same aura of magic and mysticism is seen in the general, yet unspoken, attitude toward clergy, even from those outside the Church. That aura shouldn't exist at all.

The term "Godly authority" doesn't have a clear definition of anything specific. Though some may try to explain what it means, the term, in and of itself, remains vague. Nonetheless, it is used excessively within the Church.

Does it mean that the leaders are Godly and obedient to Scripture? Does it mean that the authority is God Himself? Does it mean that the "pastor" yanked a sword from a stone, signifying his divine claim to lead? Or is it just a bunch of fluff, whether intentionally so or not, that makes the laity feel intimidated?

"Godly authority" is emphasized differently in different spheres of the Church. Sometimes it can be heavy-handed while, other times, it is more passive aggressive. Some places it is rarely mentioned while, in other places, it appears in nearly every sentence of Christian conversation. Regardless of the circumstances—when using the term "Godly authority" with reference to pastors, associate pastors, and any other leaders—we mean that everyone should act as if the pastor pulled a sword out of a stone—and we never admit that this is what we mean.

In a pure sense, "Godly authority" should refer to "authority that could not have been chosen by humans, nor could have been appointed based on made up stories such as retrieving swords from mythical stones, but clearly demonstrates unmistakable authority from Heaven". But that doesn't describe anyone to whom Churchianity applies the term to. This idea makes no room for the elders or a denomination making a mistake in appointing who "God calls" as a pastor. Shouldn't it seem strange, that Christians use a term to describe people whom the term does not and cannot describe?

If the term "Godly authority" means "God appointed", this would eliminate all clergy from claiming "Godly authority" since they were commissioned by "the Church" and not by God. Being commissioned by the Church isn't bad, but it is different from "Godly authority".

In our current day, it doesn't seem that anyone has true "Godly authority", by any demonstrable definition of the term.

I believe this will change and that over the next few decades, God will begin to introduce people who fit that definition of "Godly authority", who clearly have authority from Heaven and are not chosen by elders, congregations, and voting parishioners. The New Testament apostles had this authority, evident in the miracles and evangelism of Acts. The Antichrist will claim to have this authority and many may exploit the culture that supports the clerical system to claim that the Antichrist is, supposedly, "Godly".

If Christian leaders emerge in the next few decades with true, "Godly authority", the elders, congregations, and the laity will respect these leaders, much like how the whole world recognizes Billy Graham as having been called by God to be an evangelist. They will be accepted universally as being what they are because of the fruit they produce. And, of course, some people will object to those leaders. But, everyone will know who those leaders are. While we already recognize evangelists and prophets this way, we will soon apply this to true "pastors", and, additionally, End Times apostles.
**Apostles**

With the coming changes, "apostles" will inevitably emerge. The devil will surely attempt to create counterfeits as he always does. So, it is vital that the Church understand how to identify a true End Times apostle in the days ahead.

Many false apostles will take the stage and attempt to remove Scripture's place in the Church, add to it, misinterpret it in the name of "revelation", or misapply it. They will claim to have new revelation that outdates or "finishes" the New and Old Testaments while encouraging the Church to continue the clerical system.

That will be a sure sign of a false apostle: adamant defense of the clerical system, which, even as it stands today, will either allow the Antichrist to control Christians or else quickly find and behead them using government tax records of weekly attendance. Whether the Antichrist uses extensive Sunday morning attendance records to find Christians, it is possible; water travels where there is a way.

But, more importantly than exploiting clerical attendance records to kill Christians, the Antichrist will be able to exploit the clerical system's wide-spread acceptance to gain instant notoriety and indoctrinate society with his own dogma. We have already seen other social causes from many ends of the social-political spectrum exploit the pulpit as a bullhorn. The Antichrist will take this ability to a whole new level—but he only can if the clerical system still exists when he takes the stage. This is why false apostles will work effortlessly to uphold the clerical system.

While false apostles will hail the Antichrist after he rises, how can the false apostles be identified before those days? The best litmus test for identifying counterfeits is a simple understanding of the real thing. Learn to identify End Times apostles through the eyes of Scripture—recognizing that they hold a purist interpretation of Scripture (Biblical Theology approach) above Church customs, culture, and tradition, preferring terms like "renaissance" over "progressivism".

Of course, End Times apostles will be different from New Testament apostles, but in a complementary way. NT apostles established the Church, ET apostles will restore the Church. NT apostles authored Scripture to guide the Church. ET apostles will call the Church back to the Scriptures as our primary source of guidance. NT apostles saw the first baptism of the Holy Spirit as foretold in the Scriptures. ET apostles will shepherd the Church to flow in the leading of the Holy Spirit under the direction of Scripture, seamlessly, without viewing Spirit and Truth as being in a "dynamic tension".

The Holy Spirit and the Word of God do not have any form of "dynamic tension" since the Trinity is not a system of "checks and balances". From fear of miracles and mistakes, the Church has operated in and spoken from a paradigm of such terms as "dynamic tension" or "balance". This way of thinking has only caused division and misunderstanding—because that way of thinking presumes a "divisive-conflict-unto-balance" paradigm of God. ET apostles will help the Church to heal from division within the Body by helping Christians understand that God is not balanced or divided against Himself.

Though many individual Christians try to flow in the Holy Spirit and seek Scripture as their primary source of guidance, institutionalized Churchianity tends to follow "ministry strategery" and "denominational policies" and other such systems as their main source of guidance. These methods are so esteemed in Churchianity, it is almost as if these customs and systems have replaced Scripture within the Church, even in denominations that claim to believe the doctrine of Sola Scriptura.

Luther's doctrine of Sola Scriptura was not powerful merely because he claimed it, published it, and taught it outwardly—he actually believed it in his heart so much so that he was willing to split the Western Church. Sola Scriptura means that the Bible has precedence over other systems of knowledge and guidance, even when we follow those other systems informally or unofficially.

The organized Church must come to the understanding of "how to" prioritize pure Biblical Theology over the other systems we've developed, no matter how wise and useful those systems may be. Not only must the Church want to do this; the Church needs help actually making it happen. ET apostles will help accomplish this.

ET apostles, like NT apostles will not be "certified", "ordained", or "commissioned" by the Church or by schools, universities, seminaries, or other institutions created by mankind. Rather, they will merely have self-evident authority—or ability—to do what normally could not otherwise be done. This will be their main form of validation.

This is not to say that ET apostles will always perform healing miracles and other signs and wonders, though they may. John the Baptist performed no miracles, yet he was considered the greatest of all the prophets, merely because he pointed to Christ.

Although many people do miracles today, as Moody teaches, miracles are not normative and they never will be—otherwise miracles wouldn't be miracles. Miracles don't solve everything. Even in the presence of miracles today, reconciliation among Christians in the clerical system has proven to be an even greater task than giving sight to the blind.

Although we witness all the miraculous healing ministries we see in the Church today, no one has been able to reconcile the universal Body of Christ into the unity that Jesus prayed for in John 17. Jesus also understands what it is like for a prayer to go unanswered. Someone who can help move the Church toward reconciliation isn't a mere prophet, nor an evangelist, but that person must clearly have the calling of an End Times apostle.

So, of all the fruits of Heaven's authority that ET apostles will bear, reconciliation will be their greatest fruit. Unlike NT apostles, authoring Scripture will not be listed among their fruit, it will be their source of knowledge and the Holy Spirit will be their source of ability.

The spirit of Elijah, described at the close of the Old Testament, turns the hearts of fathers to children and the hearts of children to fathers. That was the spirit which hailed the first coming of Christ through John the Baptist and it will also hail Christ's return through ET apostles. Ultimately, Jesus Himself will settle the disputes among nations and peoples. So, the authority to bring reconciliation, which will be demonstrated by End Times apostles, will be only a glimpse of the true Peace that will come with the Return of the Prince of Peace.

One question that often surfaces concerning the idea of any post-New Testament apostle is accountability. Who holds apostles accountable? Again, I suggest that this question only arises from the framework of a clerical system because the clerical system limits the power of the laity, including the power of the laity to hold all leaders accountable.

Apostles, New Testament and End Times alike, are not accountable to God alone—though everyone is in the Eternal sense—but, because an apostle's ministry is so wide-spread, they are held accountable by everyone in the entire Church. The Body of Christ cannot and need not appoint or dismiss an apostle, but they certainly can follow the Lord's leading to start or stop listening to an apostle, and no more accountability is needed, given that an apostle's only authority comes from the Body choosing to listen.

If the Church has no clerical system, then the power of accountability will fall into the hands of everyone in the Church. Accountability does not necessarily mean that there needs to be a small group of people, or single person, with great power over others, who may or may not be operating under the influence of corruption, who can "remove someone else's Christian calling supposedly given by God". If elders can fire their clergyman because his sermon offends their pride, usually with an excuse to shroud such deeper reasons, then whatever those elders can take away from that clergyman is not a calling from God. The ability of a small committee to fire a clergyman does not encompass the full, Christian idea of Biblical accountability. Even Paul defended his apostolic calling, not to any board that ostensibly operated as the mouthpiece of God, but to the entire Church.

True accountability requires that we all take initiative to maintain fellowship with other Christians. The clerical system allows us to, in a manner of speaking, "delegate" the responsibility of our so-called "accountability" to a small group of others. "They must act in order for me to be accountable..." this is the mentality of so-called accountability within a clerical system. If we eliminate this clerical system, then End Times apostles will actually have much more accountability than "being fired" could ever provide to clergy.

Think of the accountability that a President has. Paparazzi constantly breathe down his neck. What about Sarah Palin? Could she have an affair and get away with it? Of course not, and it isn't because she submits to a clergyman who can excommunicate her for not respecting him, but because she is under the white heat of scrutiny from the public eye.

End Times apostles will not hold administrative leverage over others. They'll not perform excommunications. They'll not "fire" people, though Nee suggests that they have the power to "remove" elders when the need arises. But even in this, they will simply speak words that are every bit as powerful as grandma's when she speaks to the whole family. One might refer to this kind of authority as rapport. Apostles' authority structure in the Church is their impervious rapport.

Accountability is important, but, once again, the question is about how we define it. And—once again—by acknowledging the stark difference between the top-down leadership method of clergy from the self-sacrificial servant leadership of shepherds, true, Biblical accountability becomes much more attractive to those who truly and purely want Biblical accountability rather than leveraged power over others, or the false sense of security by trusting too much in the leadership of a mere, sinful man.

Notarizing the consolidated power of clergy actually reduces accountability, replacing it with a false sense of security. No wonder there is so much corruption in the clerically-managed Church—true accountability has been displaced by the fraudulent "accountability" of the clerical system, which readily lends itself to serve as a veil of misplaced confidence in order to shroud the ongoing sin of everyone involved. In that purpose, the clerical system has been very successful, though not entirely. There are too many good people involved in the clerical system for it to be entirely successful, just as there are too many good people in the clerical system for it to fail as it should.

Generally speaking, ET apostles will not run around and introduce themselves as "apostles". NT authors introduced themselves in their writings as "apostles of Jesus Christ", not to emphasize their apostolic calling, but to emphasize the fact that it was Jesus Christ, not mere man, who gave them to the Church. By the time they wrote those letters, the Church had already recognized that they were apostles. So, they weren't trying to prove or defend their calling with these introductions. Rather, they were reminding the Church of who the Church already knew called them as apostles in the first place.

This does not pertain only to apostles, however. This relates to all the gifts of Ephesians 4:11. These, being called by God, do not need to defend what should be obvious. Think about it...

If a father always says that he's a father—excessively—one might begin to doubt that he actually is a father or that he is somehow insecure about the matter. A father will say that he is a father at times, but not all the time. The same is true of janitors, coaches, teachers, presidents, bankers, businessmen... and also apostles, prophets, evangelists, and pastors.

Consider the clerical system: When a clergyman says, "I'm the pastor. That's my decision," in that moment of which he speaks, he is actually doing the work of a clergy or leader of the organization and not pasturing. The true pastoral work of that same man happens in those moments when he says, "I'm just your friend and I want to say, 'Thank you,'" or when he takes time out of his on-the-job time to visit a friend in need. It is in those personal-relational times of love for others and gentle instruction, not "because it's his job to do hospital visits", that a man demonstrates the Ephesians 4:11 work of a shepherd-teacher/pastor.

This is also demonstrated by Evangelists. Billy Graham doesn't introduce himself as "Evangelist Billy Graham" when he speaks. To him and his friends, he is just "Billy". The term "evangelist" helps the universal Church to understand what it is that he does, but we still call him "Billy Graham". Prophets of the Old Testament didn't introduce themselves as "prophets"—they were called prophets by the people, by the kings, and by the Lord who commissioned them. That should be the same with true Ephesians 4 pastors. And it will be the same with ET apostles. Never trust anyone who writes, "Pastor," "Apostle," "Prophet," or Evangelist," on his business card. Business card titles should be, "Janitor," "Soccer Mom," "Deacon," "Loan Officer," or, "President and Operator of Paulos Tent Company". If you are a pastor or an evangelist or a prophet or an apostle, it is best that you let others be the ones to say so. Just use your first name. Let trade names be used for trade and let names for the invisible Church remain invisible.
**Concerning China**

Today, the Local Church movement has gained respect from the Chinese government. This is largely because they do not develop power structures. They keep their fellowships organic, local, and small.

China's Communism, which opposes power, is different from Russian Communism, which opposes God. While the Chinese attempt to teach Marxism in Beijing, the fundamental assumptions of Chinese "Shame" culture will never accept Russia's ability to be candid in friendship and imperturbable in war—cultural strengths owed to the Bible's influence through the Orthodox Church. Beijing doesn't have a Biblical influence foundation in their culture on which Marxism needs to build.

The method in which Beijing wants to take Taiwan is anything but Marxist. Russia would have been silent about it, then struck in the dead of night. But the pride of Chinese generals and exchange students in America won't allow them to keep their mouths shut. We Americans look to writers like Paul Bunyan, Thomas Paine, and Samuel Adams; China looks to people like Confucius, Sun Tzu, and Han Fei Tzu. Marx will never top that list in reality, no matter how much Chinese claim it does. Han Dynasty blood is just too in love with itself.

Han Fei Tzu, 280-233 BC, wrote about power and invented the Asian concept of legalism. This is very different from legalism in the Western Church. For Han Fei Tzu, legalism is the idea that the legal powers should have the supreme political and economic power. He did not like underground associations, bribery, or secret societies for a very simple reason: Whether officially or unofficially, they conflicted with powers of government.

(This also impacts the ability for Western affiliation to control the Chinese. While Americans may see government, business, and religion as a means to reach their personal or organizational goals, the Chinese's subconscious worldview will always see the Western affiliations as a mere means to reach the goals of their undying Han imperialism. While the Chinese may say otherwise, we must remember that lying is so embedded into the worldview of China, it is even part of Mandarin grammar. 'Maybe' means, 'we're friends,' while the simple, 'yes,' or, 'no,' that Jesus taught means, 'I hate you.' This is a problem that Asian clergy, especially in Chinese-American congregations, have surrendered to—another weakness of the clerical system. Conspiracy societies, fiction or non, are not capable of incorporating countries like China. Even the Antichrist will struggle to overcome the cultural differences engrained through millennia by our language barriers. God's solution to global conspiracy was multiple languages, a barrier which can only be passed by Jesus and his Spirit as we saw at Pentecost. Cultural 'wild cards' like the insolubility of Western culture and ancient Chinese 'Pride' make 'alarmist conspiracyism' little more than unwarranted 'kookery'. Not even the Antichrist can pull the strings of both the West and China, only Jesus can. This is why I am not a conspiracy kook. Even if the contradictory theories are true, they would never stand a chance against the Lord.)

In America, both honest and dishonest people see a powerful government as a means for wicked and greedy men to accomplish any of a myriad of alternative agendas. The reason Americans distrust government isn't because government is, itself, bad, but because evil men corrupt government to serve their own private purposes. The more power a politician has, the more an evil businessman has to gain in bribing that politician. That's why Americans want their government to be small.

So, Americans keep government weak to keep the mafia weak. In East Asia, the dynamics are entirely different. For China, a powerful government means a weak mafia—and that's good for everyone except the mafia. Of course, this would not keep the government from contracting the mafia for their "dirty" jobs, but that gets too deep into East Asian politics.

My point is this: The Local Church movement, and the overall underground Church in China, were not persecuted for Christ, as they would have been in Russia. Rather, they were persecuted because their Western power structures, at the time, were seen as a threat to government's power. The Chinese didn't persecute Jesus per se, they persecuted clerical power. This "flavor" of persecution was unusual and allowed the Church to grow in China, especially without the top-heavy Church administration that we are accustomed to in the Western Church.

Interestingly, Watchman Nee wrote about and discussed with his family three "selfs" that the Church in China needed: self-funded, self-administered, self-propagated. The meant that the fellowships of the Church in China should operate locally, not being franchised, sanctioned, controlled, "held accountable", or otherwise "helped" by other countries such as the US. After Nee was imprisoned, those same three "selfs" became the three "selfs" of the Chinese government's "Three Self Church". That basically meant the Chinese government telling the American Church: Get out—we don't want your unbiblical mess! And, we all know the amazing growth rate of the Church in China.

In other words, the underground Church of China, whether LC-Nee or other random local home groups, flourished because they were not allowed to morph into the massive clerical system we have today in the West. While much of China's Church ascribes their growth to persecution, LC-Nee's history suggests that, specifically, the growth resulted from the enforced lack of the clerical system in China. The Church flourished.

We cannot have proper appreciation for the unprecedented growth in the Church of China without acknowledging the true shepherding that was able to take place in the absence of the clerical system. China's Communist government did the Church a big favor.

The Chinese Communist government's "Three Self Church", local Christian fellowships can register and avoid persecution. According to reports, government registered Churches tend to be more calm and boring, while unregistered Christian fellowships, part of the underground Church of China, operate more in the Spirit and miracles, which are known in the West for having grown like a wildfire.

American Christians claim that they would like this type of Church growth in America. I believe that God does also. We can have the same fruits if we plant the same seeds. But the choice is ours: We can eliminate the clerical system ourselves or God can send someone else to do it for us. I think, as Barna and others indicate, we are already seeing both occur in America. This simply means temporary unpopularity within the Church for those who recognize smoke on the horizon and already left the clerical system, and more pain in the future for those who are late on the uptake. It is less painful to be a forerunner, but only in the long run.

More recently, the Chinese government has discovered that Christians are not a threat to their power. Actually, so they discovered, the non-clerical Christians of China are more likely to obey the law and contribute to domestic peace. LC-Nee, and Watchman Nee especially, were heavily persecuted in China after CRI published them in cult watchdog lists. But, since the Communists have seen their lifestyles, that fellowship within the Chinese Church has found favor with the government, so long as they keep their meetings small. The fruit of decentralized Christian China proved more persuasive than Western Christian periodicals.

Today, the informal Church of China, not registered as ecclesiastical entities with the Chinese government's "Three Self Church", can operate more openly, so long as they don't get too many people under one roof, and so long as their leaders don't gain too much power. In some cases, the Chinese government will print Bibles for Christians on government-owned printing presses. The reason the Chinese Communists don't want Bibles smuggled into their country is not because they oppose Jesus, but because they are suspicious of outside influences of power. If an American gets caught smuggling Bibles into China, the government will wonder whether he's working for CIA. Why, after all, would Christians need to smuggle anything?

Through the years and into today, local underground congregations in China have taken many shapes and sizes. Some of them have clergy and some do not. Some are loosely affiliated with other fellowships and some are not. While some of the informal fellowships in the underground Church of China had clergy, those clergy were limited by the Chinese government because of the administrative struggles for power. This prevented underground Chinese clergy from becoming as powerful as clergy have in America. The result? Christianity flourished and society became more stable where there were "pastors who were not clergy".
**Pastors Are Very Capable**

If one only looks at the surface, pastors might appear to be the ones to blame for our problems. They're in charge, right? Leadership 101 tells us that responsibility for what happens on a ship, good or bad, falls at feet of the captain. But God 101—that God doesn't need clergy as much as we silently assume He does—tells us something different.

Pastors are not to blame for the bad situation in the Church because they're not actually in charge. The clerical system creates a delusion that pastors are in charge while the system runs the show. The clerical system doesn't actually help the Church; it just has everyone—including the Church—convinced that it does.

Christ is and always will be the true Shepherd. The problems in the Church come from our individual disobedience—including that we each have accepted the clerical system, that we fail to pass God's tests, and have, thus, unwittingly deviated from the original plan for God Himself to be our Shepherd.

In a sense, a pastor or "shepherd-teacher" does not "pastor" or "lead" the Church. Jesus alone shepherds His Church while pastors shepherd in His Church. This distinction involves more than words. It should define our daily routines.

A person can lead an organization—and this is not bad in and of itself. That organization may have times of corporate worship. It may have times of teaching. It may have ministry to the poor. It may be wonderful. It may be terrible. But it is not the Church. At best, it is para-Church. God's Church is invisible, universal, and only Jesus can and does shepherd it.

Leaders of para-Church organizations, including Sunday morning congregations and fellowships, are "directors" and "teachers" and should be referred to as such. While "directors" may be "pastors/shepherds", they can also be fathers, brothers, and musicians. When operating as directors, they should be called "directors", not "fathers", "musicians", nor even "pastors". Likewise, para-Church should be called "para-Church", including Sunday morning ministries.

When we refer to our own organizations as if they are the true Church—which we can't lead, which only Christ can lead—rather than made of and part of the Church, we expect too much from ourselves. We become superstitious about the leaders in our organizations. We place too much pressure on them. And, when they prove their human limits and sinfulness, we act as if we should be surprised.

When those temporary para-Church organizations fail, we are sad, as if something "eternal" has been lost. All this anxiety exists because the delusion of clerical system causes us to confuse our institutions with God's Institution—to think that our leadership is equal to God's leadership and that our decisions are the same as God's decisions. This takes us right back to the garden where man tried to become God.

It's better to let God be God and let Humanity remain Human. If we don't confuse our work with God's work—if we see that we are God's workmanship—and that, though our work and God's work cooperate together in His will, our work and God's work remain distinct from each other—and life is much more satisfying for everyone.

Our man-made para-Church organizations and God's Church cooperate, maybe even overlap, but they are not one-in-the-same. When someone says, "I'm in charge of these matters, but Bill, over there, he handles other decisions. So, ask me about your other questions. But this problem, today, you need to get help from Bill,"—that person is not talking about God's Church. He's talking about a Human organization which may serve some of the purposes of the Church.

Once we understand this, deeply in our hearts and in our behavior, instantly, right in that very understanding, we have begun our departure from the clerical system. It's that simple... And all of us can keep our jobs, some must change our titles... though, maybe we won't want to keep our old jobs because so many new jobs will open up. In terms of jobs, fear of leaving the clerical system may be compared to fear of simplifying tax laws merely because many accountants would be unemployed (which some may consider a good thing <tongue-in-cheek>.)

What opponents of simplified tax law don't realize is that, by simplifying tax law, the economy would be freed up so much so that there wouldn't be enough accountants to manage the books of all the new businesses that would be created. While tax season work would diminish, accounting work, in general, would also increase. The same would be true of employment in serving with para-Church organization. Former and experienced clergy wouldn't be outdated, they would be in-demand.

By seeing the local, congregational, and Sunday morning fellowships and ministries for what they are—not the Church, but para-Church—we begin our exodus from the clerical system. It's more of a "worldview" thing than an on-paper strategy. It doesn't need to be any more complicated than this. Transitions take time. Understanding the need for transition is one of the most important steps, and that's the main step in front of the Church, for the time being. And, though this first step is simple, the first step will make all the difference in the world.
**One Team, One Body, One Church**

Consider clothing: We wear gloves on our hands and socks on our feet. We take them off when they become old or dirty or when we take a bath or, merely, when we don't need them for the moment. Sometimes we wash them, sometimes we don't. Sometimes we replace them, sometimes we repair them. But we never confuse a glove with the hand that moves it nor do we confuse the socks with the feet we stand on.

Likewise, we should never confuse our own organizations as being the invisible, universal Institution of the Lord—the Body of Christ, which only Christ can lead. Para-Church ministries, including congregational fellowships, are like socks. They're great. They protect feet. They are needed by the Body. They are a vital tool of the Body. But, they, in and of themselves, are not members of the Body.

When people ask me which "Church" I'm a "member" of, I say, "I'm a member of the Church of Asia," because that's where I currently live. When people ask me if I "change Churches" often, I say, "No, I don't often change my residence status. I've only changed Churches once, when I moved from America to Asia." When people ask me what it takes for me to "change Churches" I say, "When I move my stuff across the Pacific." But, since I have stuff on both sides of the Pacific, I'm thinking about changing to the Pacific Church, so I won't have to "change Churches" when I finally move back to America.

There is one Church, though the New Testament recognizes a difference between Churches in different cities or regions. That's how the Bible calls it. That's how I call it.

At the time of writing this, I'm a member of the Church of Asia and I am writing this to my former Church, the Church which I plan to return to in time, the Church of America. There is one universal Church and we, as Christians, are all members of it. And that is the most important Church membership any of us have.

I don't acquiesce to the implications of questions which assume that Christ has multiple Bodies. Even though I know what people mean—they mean the clerical system, specifically—I refuse to accept an improper description of the Church as anything but improper.

Some people say that I'm splitting hairs over mere words. But, if these differences are merely about words, then we should lay down the unbiblical words and choose what is Biblical. But this is not about mere words. When people say that "it's merely about words", they really just want me to change my thinking to support their [unbiblical] way of viewing the world, on the grounds that, "it's current culture," and that, "we don't want to make waves unnecessarily," and, "it may not be good, but it's just the way it is,"...as if Christians aren't called to be the salt that changes a "culture".

This isn't about mere words. It is about confusing our roles and our workmanship and our leadership with God's role and God's workmanship. Like an idol, once we fall in love with the work of our own hands, whether physical or organizational, we forget our First Love and it becomes nearly impossible to let go of our earthly empires and treasures.

There is only one Church and we need to talk like we actually believe it if we ever hope to have worldwide Christian unity. Without Christian unity, we cannot fulfill the Great Commission given by our Lord who prayed for us to love one another. Have you ever been sad at the thought that Jesus doesn't answer your prayer? If so, then perhaps you understand a little of how Jesus feels that the Church hasn't answered His prayer.

For now, speaking the way I speak about the Church—that there is only one—is the most effective action step I can recommend to help fulfill the Great Commission. This is because of where proper terminology will inevitably lead. Christian unity will speed up the Great Commission's progress. I know the day will come when the Church will drop its division, only identifying differences of location, not micro-creed, not which clergyman is leading which congregation. Denominations will become an ugly past, but past nonetheless, ceasing to be our mode of operation. And, then, the Great Commission won't seem like such a mountain to climb.

By removing the clerical system, we easily liberate women to flow freely within their callings in the Church. This is because we won't need to answer the question about whether "a woman" should have such great power. The better question is whether any mere man should have such power. Eliminate the power seats, especially if those power seats are not prescribed by Scripture. Then, whether women can have that power is no longer a relevant question.

All of us have direct access to Christ. So, any leadership we may have is not with regard to the actual Body itself, but to our specific tasks. That's the basis of teamwork.

There is a lot said, today, in the world of business and Christian ministry, about team unity. When I hear Christian leaders talk about the important of teamwork, but then hear them turn around and say things like, "My Church," as if it is different from, "Your Church," and "changing Churches," and, being "inside" or "outside" the Church... it makes it difficult for me to believe that the person speaking actually understands true teamwork. A basketball doesn't change "teams" just because one team member passes it to another team member. In regulation game of basketball, there are only two teams, not ten.

Right now, a main teaching trend is teamwork. Yes, to get anything done, we must first act as a team. If you're a leader who speaks of teamwork as often as dogs bark, as often as birds chirp, as often as college students post selfies, and as often as robots Tweet... Yes, we have heard you. Teamwork. So, do it already!

Start talking and thinking like there is one Christian Church, one team, one Shepherd over us all, and one mission. There are different roles, but one team. One Body, many parts.

The clerical system presumes, depends on, and perpetuates the concept of "multiple churches". Its existence keeps the Church divided, not from malice or intent or ill will, but merely through is administration. The theme of teamwork, properly taught in the Body of Christ looks like this: Abandon the divisive clerical system and fully embrace the idea that there is one universal Church.

More specifically, we must abandon the term "a church" in reference to a congregational ministry. We don't refer to Jesus as "a god" since there is only one God. The Church is no different in its absolute singularity.

In fact, if we think about it, to suggest that there is more than one Church is to imply, though unwittingly, that there is more than one God, since God only has one Church. Jesus is not a Siamese twin with one head. Talking as if there are multiple Churches borders on an unspoken claim to polytheism.

Perhaps, instead, we could say, "This is a para-Church," or, "This is my para-Church," or, "This is my weekly Christian fellowship." And, instead of saying, "This is my pastor," say, "This is the director of my group."

(English language note: To say, 'my organization,' doesn't necessarily mean that the speaker claims to 'own' the organization any more than a child claims ownership of his family merely by saying, 'This is my mother.')

A Christian organization has no more right to ask for a "pastoral reference" than an "evangelistic reference" or "apostolic reference" or "prophetic reference", especially if being listed in Ephesians 4:11 is the main basis for asking for such references.

Perhaps, when testing one's Christian fellowship on an application for work or school, etc., we could ask for a "Christian reference" and ask the referrals questions like, "Does the applicant take personal initiative in developing organic and individual Christian fellowship, which is not any result of central planning done by anyone else?" That is a much more useful question when testing one's involvement with the local Church.

Instead, however, asking for a "pastoral reference" is a sly and schemish way of testing whether a Christian is part of the clerical system, even though no statements of faith explicitly prescribe that participation in a clerical system must be the paramount requirement of Christian fellowship. If Christian institutions intend to require participation in the clerical system, as opposed to other valid and Biblical forms of Christian fellowship, then they should do so openly, not by means of de facto policies that implement such requirements silently.

Admittedly, nearly all Christians employed by such institutions, which have such questions on their applications, do not intend to be disingenuous in the least. Most of the time, such questions are based on good motives and reason. The implications of this behavior are unintentional for nearly the entire Body of Christ... At least they were. But ignorance about this matter is diminishing. It is time to update our questionnaires.

The clerical system, being wholly unholy, not described anywhere in the Bible, but having the fruits forbidden throughout the Bible, should seem as foreign to Christians as mosques are foreign to Roman Catholics. Asking whether a Christian submits to a clergyman should seem as strange as asking a dolphin whether it hatched from an egg. The only informed answer is, "Of course not!"

When we maintain our good and effective para-Church organizations for what they are, and regard ad hoc, informal Christian fellowship as the main and valid form of necessary Christian fellowship, which, being unofficial, requires daily effort on the part of each Christian—then, in that moment, we have abandoned the clerical system, not only in our hearts, but in our habits.

Christians can continue to gather in the same places on Sunday morning. They can continue to listen to the same people teach them. They can sing songs with the same musicians. But, we must understand that gathering for these purposes in mutually-exclusive fellowships is not Biblical. Rather, such a meeting is one of many possible fulfillments of organic Christian fellowship. When we acknowledge this, a spade will finally be called a "spade", we won't think more highly of our institutions than we ought, and the Church will see far more strength and stability. That's what it means to "do Church without a clerical system". It starts with perspective, naturally affecting our actions.

From the vantage point of our actions, we can understand how and why the clerical system and true Christianity are diametrically opposed. They simply cannot thrive together. One must go for the other to progress. More importantly, with the continued growth in the Body of Christ, the two cannot coexist much longer.

Failing to see this conflict between the clerical system and the Body of Christ has resulted in the Churchianity we know today. The world is sick and tired of it. The Church should be sick and tired of it. God only knows what God thinks of it, but it can't be good. And China outlawed it, just before they saw unexpected health and exponential growth. The clerical system has had its trial run for nearly two millennia. It is time to try true Church instead.

A day is coming when some Christians will begin to practice this and expect other Christians to do the same, yet some other Christians will refuse and there will be civil war in the Church over this matter. People who are in support of these ideas will be accused of starting "cults" and "evading authority", just as happens to everyone who brings change, regardless of how Biblical and wise the change is. Then, another day is coming, after that, when the majority of the Church will implement these ideas on a daily basis and it will be assumed as the normal mode of operation among the worldwide Church.

This process has been repeated time and again through history and the struggle to implement wise policies will be no different this time around. DL Moody's goal will be achieved because the majority of the Church will contain "gap men" who, "...bridge the gap between the preachers and the laity." That will, indeed, be a good day for the whole world because it will result in the Great Commission being fulfilled at a dramatically increased pace.

This won't happen because it is your idea or my idea or a well-researched idea—it is not from any of our own brainstorming or statistical analysis. These changes will happen when the Church returns to God's idea, as it has been plainly recorded and demonstrated in the New Testament.

Perhaps the reason we, the Church, have avoided dealing with our Barna-reported problems is because we don't want to blame pastors. So, we say "The Church isn't perfect," and act like it should stay worse than Windows and government, until Jesus jumps down through a window from Heaven and puts the government on His shoulders. Once we understand that pastors are not to blame—because they're not running the show like the clerical system claims they are—we won't have as much emotional investment at stake. Then it will be easier to admit and overcome the problems which plague the Church... problems which we ourselves each contribute to, and, therefore, problems which we can each help solve among ourselves, under God's leadership.

That is the point of this book: Clergy don't shepherd. Pastors are not to blame; the blame falls at the feet of the clerical system, which we have all unwittingly sold out to. True pastors, operating Biblically—ad hoc and organic—are the solution.
**Conclusion: What Does the Future Look Like?**

Frankly, we don't know what the future looks like because we haven't done it yet. Congregations could specialize more. Some pastors could become businessmen and mentor Christians in business. Some pastors could learn from Christian businessmen and teach others about their discoveries. Some fellowships could focus on specialized ministries much more. For the congregational fellowships that specialize and find their own niche, the job of pastor could be replaced with the title of "Deacon", with less of a wide-sweeping teaching and decision-making role. Those larger positions should be rightly labeled "Director" or "President" or "Chairman" or "CEO", etc.

Those who are currently the do-it-all point-man de facto CEO of local congregations could be more free to redefine what they do, to focus on the things they know God actually called them to, and to find the results, which they've always wanted, but have, somehow, always eluded them. Many full time clergy-pastors would love to do something like that, they just need more permission from the people who pay them.

If you are a not a leader in a congregational or Sunday morning ministry, but you agree with the ideas in this book, then go to your pastor. Tell him that you support the ministry, you agree with what they do, and that you want the ministry to continue. And tell the leaders that you agree with some of the ideas in this book, that changing titles and perspectives, opening doors for people to flow in and out, and thinking more of "teamwork" will only increase the good things God does in and through you. If you are a pastor or congregational leader who agrees with some of the ideas in this book, you can basically say the same thing to your congregation.

Christians have been attempting new ways to reach new people and to bring back Christians who left. We have considered "sport outreaches", "friendship evangelism", "vacation Bible school", inviting John Jacobs and the Power Team (quite cool, actually), and even distributing candy with tracts of The Four Spiritual Laws. These may have been useful, but largely spat upon. We have considered modernizing our buildings and, in some extreme and radical action, to even eliminate the greeter!

But, would your congregation consider changing your director's job title from "pastor" to "teacher", "director", or "CEO"? Try it, run a one-month ad on a billboard saying that you did it, say nothing more, do nothing more, and see what the result is. I humbly recommend "director" closer to rural areas because "directors" are more normal in the arts and on the wild frontier. Urban areas appreciate the "corporate America" culture of business and may identify more with heavy terms like "CEO" or "President".

Use terms that people in your Church (city) identify with. But, whatever you do, don't use titles that send the wrong message, use titles that send the right message. I wouldn't consider "shepherd" or any others listed in Eph 4:11—unless "car washer" is also on the list of considerations, but that wouldn't be as accurate. A title should describe a "director" with reasonable accuracy.

Renaming the title of the director will not only affect what happens to the outside perception of the ministry, but also inside. If the director starts saying, "I'm not a pastor. Anyone can be a pastor. Yes, I can perform a wedding under laws of the State. But otherwise, I'm just the director," that would seriously impact the internal attitude of a fellowship.

Don't announce the change right away, unless you feel the Spirit leading you to. I might make the change almost immediately, then rent the billboard for the following month. "We changed our pastor's title to 'Director'. – Northtown Crossroads Christian Fellowship" the sign could read. Say nothing else. Watch the buzz begin.

This wouldn't mainly redefine a "director", it would redefine a "pastor". The impact would be far-reaching.

The current de facto definition of a "pastor" today is "quite a knowledgeable person". He typically has a master's degree or substantial Bible training from his undergraduate studies. He is skilled and experienced in working with people. As I have argued here, he is highly skilled at making a highly-broken system avoid total system failure. Experienced clergy are invaluable, all the more so in a non-clerical system.

The professional clergy-pastors of our day are experienced in a broad array of skills. If experienced clergy-pastors were to add business success to their skill sets, they would be among the rarest achievers and worthy teachers in the world today. They could take over the self-improvement shelves at the bookstore—more than they have already. They would be invited to talk about Jesus Christ at secular business conferences, essentially presenting the message that Jesus Christ is much wiser than Machiavelli and businessmen can begin their success by joining the transparent brotherhood of the Lord Jesus Christ, rather than any affiliation or membership. Soon after, when revival breaks out, we'll need lots of Bible teachers for all the new Christians.

Changing the director's job title would not remove the job. It would achieve the opposite. And, with all the quick growth, and understanding that there is only one Church, existing ministries would walk in a more gratifying and enthusiastic calling—congregational fellowships would soon specialize. When they are no longer trying to fulfill the purpose of being the [one-and-only, mutually-exclusive] Church, participating in more than one will no longer be seen as a conflict of interest.

Where there is specialization, there is profit, which translates into prosperity. Many congregations could become profitable businesses that donate to the poor rather than poor families donating to them week after week. That might be another great statement to put on a local billboard for a month.

Though business is not the main focus of the Church, prosperity was God's promise to Joshua, not for the sake of prosperity itself, but because prosperity leads to success. Someone must have a profitable business so that he can donate money to fund the Great Commission. The prospect of pastors becoming business leaders is only one small aspect of the good things which will happen in the days ahead. But, even as small as it is, this prospect still gives us hope that God is far from being finished with pastors. Obviously, God is only beginning His long-term plans for all of us, pastors included.

Imagine: If one congregation focused more on ministering through large conference worship and teaching, while another focused more on smallgroup ministries... wow! Those two congregations could seamlessly combine, whether officially or unofficially, through cooperation or specialized merger. The Christians in each would have more fellowship with each other. Jobs and donation ability would both increase. And the pattern could continue with other congregations.

One of the big concerns in blending different congregations is our differences in smaller doctrinal issues; micro-creeds, as I like to call them. But, I believe, without the clerical system, problems over micro-creeds would quickly solve themselves. As I explain in the two Crossroads books, Christian doctrine disputes don't stem from lack of reconciled theology, but from lack of fellowship. Without the clerical system keeping Christians in social isolation on Sunday morning, Christians will have access to the necessary fellowship to resolve those doctrinal disputes once and for all.

Theological statements wouldn't be so important and our differences would be easier to overcome if we began by allowing our Christian administration systems to be more cohesive. In other words, though we are currently divided along lines of smaller doctrines, it is not doctrine that divides us; it is our system of organization that causes those doctrinal divisions in the first place. The clerical system is beginning of multi-congregational scheduling and funding conflict because it is, by definition, territorial. The clerical system gives traction to smaller issues of division in the Body of Christ—traction that would otherwise not exist.

So, if you need to, keep your doctrine, keep your pastor, keep your staff, keep your mission, keep your papers, but lose the clergy structure and nomenclature, be willing to watch God reinvent your local administration at a deeper level, involve your weekly fellowship with many other congregational organizations, and actively seek fellowship with Christians who have slightly different doctrine. Those are some directions we might take in our exodus from the clerical system.

It could be shaky during the shift, but I think it would go quite smoothly for fellowships that start with a simple title change. In the end, it will be better for everyone, both for pastors and all the new Christians who will flood the doors of the Church as a result.

Let's take one Christian congregational fellowship as a small case example: The River Community Church, as it is currently known, in Hartland, Michigan. At the time of first writing this, it was led by a man with a public speaking resume and Seminary degree, having the title "pastor", named Terry Prisk. What they've done is as unique as it is phenomenal.

The River Community, is loosely affiliated with Willow Creek, in South Barrington, IL. The River trended the idea of calling their weekend gatherings "experiences" rather than "services". Cleaning the floor with a mop is a "service". Cleaning our sins at the Cross was a "service" Christ did for us. We shouldn't say that we "have Church" since we already "are the Church". And, from the Angels' perspective, when Christians gather, Angels can see our spiritual praise rise to the throne of Heaven like incense—gathering for corporate worship is certainly an experience for everyone, Angels and Humans alike. They decided to call it what it is—an experience. Soon after, others in Willow Creek Association borrowed the same term, but Terry likes to remind us of the name's origin.

The River has several union card holding actors, talented musicians, excellent teachers, and competent volunteers. But there's something else unique about The River that makes them so special: They have lived out of a suitcase for nearly a decade. The hall they meet in is not their own; it is a fine arts center. Every week they unpack and repack. At every gathering, they move in and move back out again.

Moreover, Terry is still an itinerate speaker. Though he leads the ministry during the week, many times he is away. So, their weekend "experiences" get a good mix of different teachers. In other words, they have grown accustomed to both newness and people who travel. They're somewhat nomadic, though they don't move anywhere... They're really good at gathering, teaching, and worshiping on the move.

But could the lifestyle of The River's ministry relate to the future of the Church? Consider the Christian Church of their greater area. Nearby cities of Brighton and Howell have a strong sense of Christian unity, even within the great restrictions brought about under the clerical system. It is somewhat unusual.

I remember one winter, when local Christian leaders in Howell had coordinated their congregational youth ministries to come together for a weekend retreat. Those leaders took the stage for a unified time of prayer. Though it still had some pangs of the clerical system, it was refreshing and it thrilled my heart to see Christians finding excuses to unite, rather than finding excuses to remain divided. I'm sure that Heaven was all the more thrilled. That's the youth of the Church of the greater area of Hartland, Michigan. They are unified in spirit... and that's not easy to achieve.

Let's say that trends in that Church—the Church of greater Heartland—continue. For them, Christian unity is currently at the stage of desire and it has become a practice more and more. Eventually, because of their regional unity, that Church—the Church of the greater Heartland area—will see exponential growth.

Within a few years, because of their Christian unity, the greater Hartland area could have more Christians than they know what to do with. There will be more people who want to connect with other Believers than they can register in "visitor attendance" books. There will be more people than they have room to put under one roof for teaching and worship. And they will need to look for temporary places of meeting.

What better ministry to turn to for advice than The River Community? Appropriately named, The River Community "flows" very well. "Streams" easily come together in their fellowship. When it is time for the Church of the greater Hartland area to live out of a suitcase, The River Community will already be trained experts, prepared by the Lord in advance, suited to teach their Church of Hartland how to make it work.

This is only one example of where I see things could go, if we abandon the clerical system and exchange it for how the Church was originally designed to function. Do Terry and The River Community agree with my theory? I don't know. You'll have to ask them when you visit.

The future is something none of us have discovered yet—it is something we'll all have to discover together. If we don't do the work of the Church, no one else will. After all, we are the Church, and there is only one of us.

It is remotely possible that you may have seen things within your own Christian community that raise questions in your mind. Why do those people leave Church so they can love Jesus more? Why can't our pastor figure out the right time to hold our meetings? Why doesn't the Lord give us property to buy? Why have our numbers dropped significantly, yet the headlines of the 'Business' section keep standing out to me more and more?

If you have asked such questions and have recently been asking what God's plan is for your life, first ask yourself: What is God's plan? Look at the bigger picture. I suggest that removing the clerical system not only helps the Church solve its many riddles, it might help solve some of the local riddles you, the reader, have been trying to solve in your own city.

As king Nebuchadnezzar said to Daniel, "Now, I know that your God can solve any mystery because He helped solve my mystery." Give God the ear to let Him solve your mystery. Just listen, with an open heart, to the One who raises and razes kingdoms. Then the world will be interested in your testimony.

###
**About the Author**

Jesse Steele is an American writer in Asia who wears many hats. He learned piano as a kid, studied Bible in college, and currently does podcasting, web contenting, cloud control, and brand design. He likes golf, water, speed, music, kung fu, art, and stories.

Jesse owns various brands, occasionally teaches writing and piano, and preaches the evangels of Linux, Open-Source, and Jesus.

Today's news, yesterday.™

Email:  books@jessesteele.com

JesseSteele.com

Other Books by Jesse Steele

Churchianity: At the Crossroads (Act II)

95 Theses of the Clerical System

The Four Planes

The End: A Bible Translation of John's Revelation

Know Each Other
