Category: English

In general, many have the understanding that laity refers to the “general, non-professional” nature of the members in the church. By extension, laity refer to most unordained believers as opposed to the clergy.

How does the Bible define a laity?

The word Laity comes from Clement’s epistle to the Corinthians. The Corinthian church was divided when a young congregation unjustly dismissed its pastor. Clement, as the fourth Bishop of Rome, wrote a letter to address the situation and coined the word Lay. Clement used Lay to refer to believers who were not members of the clergy, and the original word Lay, laikos, is derived from laos, meaning people. Just as in the Old Testament God chose Israel to be His people, so in the New Testament God chose whoever believed in Him to be His people. When the word is used to distinguish between the people and the clergy, it means “unofficial”. Clement used this word to counsel laymen not to participate in sacraments that only clergy could perform.

I doubt that such a distinction is necessary. Romans 9:25-26 refers to God’s people as all who believe in Jesus Christ, whether Jew or Gentile. The Gentiles have already received the spiritual blessings God promised to Israel in the covenant of salvation as well, but they have not replaced the nation of Israel in God’s plan. Their election, salvation, and participation in God’s covenant of grace is parallel to Israel. Therefore, the church is composed of God’s people, which includes all Jews and Gentiles who have received God’s salvation. Being the same people of God, there should be no division of class, nobility, or some being regarded as more spiritual than others. All of God’s people are members in the church, and they all share the same mission to be God’s witnesses.

We should not view pastors as a professional class to separate them from believers. Such a distinction only creates unrealistic expectations for pastors and blurs the role of laity in the church. There is no difference between a pastor and a believer in essence, only a difference in their duties. The pastor is an office established by God in the church, primarily to “equip the saints for the work of service, for building up the body of Christ” (Eph. 4:12).

In the last sharing, I mentioned that clericalism is still deeply entrenched in the Diocese of West Malaysia. There may be some priests who believe that they should be the dominant ones in the Church, that their ordination to the priesthood gives them a special status. They cling to power and are reluctant to share in ministry to the extent that there is often tension in their relationships with lay people. At the same time, they also wear themselves out.

Team ministry has been validated as indispensable in leadership. No leader can work independently. It is impossible to be a leader who cannot work in a team. Even if you are not a leader, you must work in a team to be effective. In the 21st century, many lay people are much better than pastors in ability as well as in knowledge. What they lack is Bible teaching. What they need is to be built up in God’s Word to the point where they can have their lives changed. Only then they can understand God’s will instead of bringing their own desires into the church, which not only does not help build up the church, but also makes a mess of it. If pastors can seize the opportunity to properly teach and train lay people so that they understand their identity, mission, duties, etc., they will surely be able to participate in church ministries and build up the church with their abilities, talents, and knowledge.

However, some priests may do the opposite, unwilling to teach and train lay people, unwilling to share their duties, and treating the Church as their own property.

Does the Diocese of West Malaysia still have the phenomenon of clergy grasping for power, being exclusive and being excessively worshipped by the members? If that happened, that may be due to a lack of understanding of what the Church is, and of the identity, mission and duties of lay people, and even more so of God’s mission to pastors, which is to “teach them to observe all things that I have commanded you” (Mt. 28:20).

The greatest responsibility of a pastor is to build up the believers, especially through teaching and training, supplemented by pastoral care, in order to strengthen the commitment of lay people to participate in ministries, evangelism, missions, giving, witnessing in the workplace, and so on. If lay people can utilize their respective strengths, will the church not be built up? If pastors and lay people can work together as a team and fulfill their respective roles, the church will be more dynamic.

The pastor is a teacher. His ministry must be to teach and train the believers, as 1 Tim 3:2 says, “to teach well” so that they can participate effectively in the ministry. Lay people are God’s people and have received God’s call, and the church environment must be designed to equip all members to live out this high calling.

Today I want to talk about clericalism, which is deeply entrenched in the Anglican Communion. Clericalism means a policy of maintaining or strengthening the hierarchical power of the clergy. In the Anglican Communion, clericalism not only affects the attitudes of the clergy, but also negatively affects the way believers view their own identity and mission. Clericalism leads pastors to think that the church is theirs, and members to agree that the church belongs to the pastor and that everything should be done by the pastor.

Clericalism is a progressive development in the history of the church. The early New Testament church did not make a distinction between laymen and clergy. Although we are not sure when clericalism were formed, this progressive development can be divided into three periods. The first period was because heresy was a serious problem in the early church, and therefore in the fight against heresy there was a need for bishops or theologians of the church to refute heresy and teach the believers the correct doctrines in order to bring about the unity of the church. This, coupled with the structural needs of the rapidly growing early church, led to the beginnings of the distinction between laymen and clergy. The second period was a planned development after Constantine’s conversion to Christ. Constantine appointed bishops to be local officials, and divided the Church geographically into dioceses in the manner of the Roman provinces, and categorized the clergy as a privileged class. The third period came when Gregory VII declared that all men, including kings, were under papal authority. Clericalism also reached its peak at this time. Pope Boniface VIII went even further, declaring that obedience to the Pope was a condition of salvation.

After the Reformation, the Anglican Church retained some of the features of clericalism, such as specific dress for the clergy, specific training mechanisms for the clergy, and ordination ceremonies. Ordination to the priesthood became a necessary tradition of the Church, and only ordained clergy could administer the sacraments. To this day, the Diocese of West Malaysia retains these traditions. This largely has submerged the hierarchical division between pastors and believers, and reinforced the negative influence of clericalism.

I did not against the ordination, dress code and the necessary training mechanisms for the clergy. What I against is the hierarchical division between clergy and laity and the mentality of “more importance than thou”.

Many lay people have been influenced by liberals to promote freedom and abandon ‘outdated’ biblical teaching. There has been a rise of liberalism in the Church, especially in the Western. Many of the values advocated by the liberals, such as sexual openness, consumerism, individualism, cultural integrationism and relativism, continue to make believers compromise with secular thinking.

On the cover of the Hong Kong Sheng Kung Hui newsletter ECHO was an article entitled “Where do Anglican liberals go from here?” The article quoted New York Times columnist Ross Douthat’s article after the 77th National Convention of the Episcopal Church in the United States of America, in which he discussed the demise of the Church if the liberals are allowed to continue to have influence in the Church. Ross Douthat criticized the Episcopal Church in the USA for “thinking that it could attract younger and more enlightened believers through ‘reforms’, but the facts show that this has accelerated the decline. As the Episcopal Church in America adopted the liturgy of marriage in same-sex unions at its National Convention, statistics from Religion Blog show that attendance at worship in the United States between 2000 and 2010 is in a state of decline and collapse. The average number of people attending Sunday worship has fallen by 23% over the past decade, with no parish experiencing growth.”

The liberal stance on homosexuality has divided Anglican Communion, and has led the Anglican Global South to write to the Crown Nominations Commission on the appointment of a new Archbishop of Canterbury asking the commission to select an Archbishop of Canterbury who would be able to consult with the other Archbishops in a collegial manner, be sensitive to the different cultures in Anglican Communion, be able to communicate effectively and gain the trust of the other Archbishops, be able to carry out the decisions of the Lambeth Conference, and be able to work with other Archbishops in dealing with the problems of the Anglican Communion and in avoiding an increase in the divisions in Anglican Communion. The purpose of these demands is to stop the continued encroachment of liberals into the Anglican Communion.

The Anglican Church of West Malaysia should maintain its position on the teaching of the Bible. Instead of using “blessings” to attract more people to the church, the church should preach the gospel of repentance and teach a life of discipleship in taking up the cross. Repentance and taking up the cross are not attractive at all, but isn’t that what the Bible teaches?

We must ask a question: What does God really want? Is it a church full of people who are fed because of the five loaves and two fishes? Or is it disciples who repent and take up their cross?

Whether in economics, politics, race, or international relations, one principle is how to maximize the benefits to oneself, one’s race, or one’s country. Many conflicts arise as a result.

This is also evident in the church. Each church tends to think in terms of its own interests. Likewise, the diocese thinks in terms of the interests of itself. As a result, the diocese and the churches often have different opinions, and the churches always comment on diocesan policies in many ways.

In such circumstances, we must have a system for dealing with the conflicts between them. This system must also be adapted to the time as well as the situation. Decisions must be made by consensus in coordinated discussions to achieve a balance of interests so that everyone can benefit. If this is not done, and everyone seeks to maximize his or her own interests, then in the end everyone may lose out. In the church, what we seek is not to maximize our own interests, but to benefit everyone as a whole. What we seek is not for me to win and you to lose, but for everyone to win.

The church should have the wisdom to handle conflicts and avoid divisions. Christians are the light of the world and the salt of the earth. Believers live in this world and must reach out to different levels of society through different occupations, different living environments, and exert influence to bring the world to God. Yet many Christians are no different from non-Christians. There are quarrels in the church from time to time.

The church has some responsibility in this regard. Churches often fall under the spell of numbers, believing that they must be big, they must be numerous, and must be rich. Without these visible “glories,” the church cannot glorify God. Therefore, in order to achieve the goal of “glory,” the church has to keep emphasizing God’s blessings to attract more people to come to church. In this utilitarian society, God’s blessings are really quite attractive. The church has forgotten the “cross” and the “narrow gate”. As a matter of fact, God’s requirement for the church is not to be big and numerous, but to be the church. What God cares about is not how many people are in the church, but who is in the church.

I believe that these happen because, on the one hand, lay people do not understand their identity, mission, and spiritual requirements. On the other hand, the church has neglected teaching and training. Lay people do not clearly understand that they are God’s people, the new creation, the body of Christ, the bride of Christ, the royal priesthood, and the temple of the Holy Spirit, so how can they understand their calling?

Whether in economics, politics, race, or international relations, one principle is how to maximize the benefits to oneself, one’s race, or one’s country. Many conflicts arise as a result.

This is also evident in the church. Each church tends to think in terms of its own interests. Likewise, the diocese thinks in terms of the interests of itself. As a result, the diocese and the churches often have different opinions, and the churches always comment on diocesan policies in many ways.

In such circumstances, we must have a system for dealing with the conflicts between them. This system must also be adapted to the time as well as the situation. Decisions must be made by consensus in coordinated discussions to achieve a balance of interests so that everyone can benefit. If this is not done, and everyone seeks to maximize his or her own interests, then in the end everyone may lose out. In the church, what we seek is not to maximize our own interests, but to benefit everyone as a whole. What we seek is not for me to win and you to lose, but for everyone to win.

The church should have the wisdom to handle conflicts and avoid divisions. Christians are the light of the world and the salt of the earth. Believers live in this world and must reach out to different levels of society through different occupations, different living environments, and exert influence to bring the world to God. Yet many Christians are no different from non-Christians. There are quarrels in the church from time to time.

The church has some responsibility in this regard. Churches often fall under the spell of numbers, believing that they must be big, they must be numerous, and must be rich. Without these visible “glories,” the church cannot glorify God. Therefore, in order to achieve the goal of “glory,” the church has to keep emphasizing God’s blessings to attract more people to come to church. In this utilitarian society, God’s blessings are really quite attractive. The church has forgotten the “cross” and the “narrow gate”. As a matter of fact, God’s requirement for the church is not to be big and numerous, but to be the church. What God cares about is not how many people are in the church, but who is in the church.

I believe that these happen because, on the one hand, lay people do not understand their identity, mission, and spiritual requirements. On the other hand, the church has neglected teaching and training. Lay people do not clearly understand that they are God’s people, the new creation, the body of Christ, the bride of Christ, the royal priesthood, and the temple of the Holy Spirit, so how can they understand their calling?

In the last sharing we talked about how few young people are willing to serve full time. One of the reasons for this is that the church has not played its role to teach and to train. We also talked about another possible reason which is the role of parents. Today we will talk about the third possible reason.

The third reason is about whether the young people themselves are committed, especially those who wish to serve full-time. Many of the youth leaders in the church who are passionate in serving, do they read the Bible diligently? Do they pray earnestly? Do they read spiritual books frequently? What kind of quality can we expect from our young Christians?

It is a pity that there are many young Christians who are called to serve full time, but after they have just graduated, they are already in debt. They will buy a new car with a 7 to 9 year loan, buy an Apple phone by instalment, and also prefer designer clothes and expensive restaurants or cafes. Such young people who are full of loans have to pay the car loan, the mortgage loan, and the credit card interest, and even if they are willing to serve full time, they are overwhelmed by all these financial commitments. This situation is directly related to the fact that the church does not have a systematic, continuous and comprehensive discipleship programme to teach the youth.

Not only the youth, the Sunday school in the church is often just a matter of getting some textbooks from the bookstore and assigning a few teachers to teach them. Whether or not these teachers are trained is usually not a concern, as it is good enough that someone is willing to teach. Under such circumstances, these children usually just attended Sunday school by colouring and listening to stories. The church has neither the time nor the ability to teach these children in a systematic way. This makes the church miss the opportunity to teach the children to love God passionately when they are still young. What can we expect from these children when they grow up? Are they going to be committed Christians?

Last sharing we talked about how few young people are serving full time. One reason for this is that the church is not playing its role. Another possible reason is the role of parents.

The role of the parents is very important in encouraging more young people to serve full time as a pastor. Do parents encourage their children and pray earnestly for their children to commit to full-time ministry? Or are they constantly instilling worldly values and emphasize in materialistic success? Even though we have been focusing more and more on education, we have also distorted the purpose of education. Often, parents nurture their children with the sole purpose of expecting them to grow up to be successful in their careers or financially.

How many parents in the Diocese of West Malaysia educate their children with the hope that their children will serve God better? How many parents from an early age encourage their children to grow up to be pastors? How many parents instil in their children from an early age biblical values rather than the values of this world? How many parents focus on their children’s spiritual life more than their academic achievements? Can a child raised with worldly values grow up with heavenly values? Unfortunately, most of our Christian parents have secular values even in themselves.

The influence of parents on their children is crucial. What they say and do every day nurtures their children’s thinking. In fact, to put it bluntly, I believe that the vast majority of Christian parents do not want their children to become pastors.

At the end of the day, we must go back to the spiritual qualities of the Christian parent. If Christian parents do not have a change of life and are not committed to serving the Lord, then this vicious circle will continue. If there is no systematic, continuous and comprehensive discipleship training in the Diocese, Christian parents will not grow and will not be committed.

In the last sharing, we talked about a phenomena that very few young people are serving full time in the Diocese.

One of the reasons for this is that the church has not played its proper role. The role of the church is to systematically, continuously and comprehensively train and nurture children at an early age so that they will grow up to have the heart to serve God full-time.

How many churches in the Diocese of West Malaysia have such a strategic vision? How many churches have a systematic approach to train and nurture young people so that they will grow spiritually and have a strong commitment to serve God when they are young?

Unfortunately, many churches youth activities are just about playing games, eating and drinking, and making friends? What kind of Christians can be produced by such youth activities? The result of this situation is that many young people, though brought up in church, are uncommitted, unchanged, self-centred and hedonistic. Will such young people want to serve full time?

On the other hand, there are some young people who certainly have the heart to serve full-time, but because they have not been properly equipped and trained, their hearts are not strong and they are easily shaken, and as a result, they are wavering. Under such circumstances, many of them just continue their life journey and slowly incurring a lot of debts: study loans, car loans, housing loans, various personal loans, insurance premiums and so on. All these are like shackles and made them more difficult to make decision. When they get married and have children, it is almost impossible for them to serve full-time.

My conclusion is that the church’s failure to train young people properly from childhood to adolescence is a critical factor that caused their inability to serve full time when they grow up.

Sadly, there are some pastors who are not at all worry about what has happened. Some are now become event planners, busying with organising concerts, tours and so on. Why do churches keep these pastors who don’t even know what they are supposed to do? Instead of teaching the Bible diligently, they organize useless activities.

A phenomenon that has become increasingly common in the churches of the Diocese of West Malaysia in recent years is that fewer and fewer young people are entering full-time ministry. For example, in 2010, there were no new students sponsored by the Diocese of West Malaysia enrolled in the Chinese Department of STM; in 2011, there was only one middle-aged person enrolled; and in 2012, there was only one middle-aged self-sponsored student. In other words, from 2010 to 2012, there was only one theological student sponsored by the Diocese of West Malaysia who enrolled in the Chinese Department of STM. Therefore, if we look at it from the perspective of the Chinese-speaking churches, the Diocese of West Malaysia had only one Chinese-speaking middle-aged person enrolled in STM during these three years. Why is there such a phenomenon? What are the reasons that discourage young people from attending? Isn’t this an extremely serious problem?

The situation is not confined to the period from 2010 to 2012. As a matter of fact, the situation has been more or less the same over the past decade. During the 10 years from 2015 to 2024, the average number of students coming to STM full-time for theology, including diocesan and church-sponsored students, is 1.6 people per year. Also during these 10 years, the average number of those who go to MBS full-time for theology is 0.3 people per year. In other words, during the last 10 years, we have only produced 2 Chinese-speaking pastors per year. Although this is the statistic for Chinese-speaking pastors, the situation is similar for pastors of other languages. The lack of human resources is something we must be concerned about.

The lack of human resources is not only at the level of full-time pastors but also among believers. Laity makes up 98% of the church, and if we don’t cultivate and use these resources properly, then how can the church grow. Therefore, from the perspective of church growth, discipleship plays a crucial role. Only through discipleship training can believers be trained to become more committed disciples who are willing to serve, evangelize, and imitate the character of Christ, and then the church will be able to send more people to be Christ’s witnesses in the world, fulfilling the Great Commission entrusted by God.