《在起初的故事裡：重新學習作神的子民》- 《創世記》系列：第二十七篇：〈當人失去一切，神卻在路上與他相遇〉

經文：創世記 28:1–22（新漢語譯本）

一、讀到第二十八章時，我們往往只記得那道通往天上的階梯

對許多基督徒而言，創世記第二十八章最深刻的畫面，莫過於雅各夢見一道階梯立在地上，梯頂直達天上，神的使者在上面上去下來。因此，不少人閱讀這段經文時，往往把注意力放在天梯究竟象徵甚麼。然而，若把整段經文放回創世記的敘事脈絡之中，便會發現，作者真正關心的，其實不是那道階梯，而是那位正在路上的人。

第二十七章留下的，並不是一個得勝者的凱歌，而是一個破碎的家庭。哥哥以掃懷著怨恨，母親利百加不得不安排雅各離開，而雅各自己也必須踏上一條從未走過的道路。雖然他承受了父親的祝福，也重新領受了亞伯拉罕之約，但從人的角度來看，他幾乎失去了原本熟悉的一切。因此，第二十八章並不是一個成功故事的開始，而更像是一個孤身上路的人，在未知與不安之中繼續前行。¹

二、亞伯拉罕的應許，如今開始交到雅各手中

在雅各離開之前，以撒再次為他祝福。這一次，他不再像第二十七章那樣按照自己的偏愛行事，而是清楚地把亞伯拉罕所得的福交託給雅各：

「願全能的神祝福你，使你繁衍增多，成為萬民的集會。願神把亞伯拉罕的福分賜給你，也賜給與你一起的後裔，好讓你得着你所寄居的地為業，就是神賜給亞伯拉罕的那地。」（創 28:3–4）

這段祝福標誌著創世記另一個重要的轉折。從此以後，亞伯拉罕的故事開始慢慢退到背景，而雅各將成為承載應許的人。然而，作者並沒有安排他在榮耀與成功之中接過這份使命。亞伯拉罕離開吾珥時，帶著家人、牲畜與財物；而雅各離開別是巴時，卻更像一個逃亡的人。他沒有產業，也沒有妻子；沒有僕人，也沒有羊群。除了父親所給予的祝福之外，他幾乎一無所有。

創世記似乎刻意讓讀者看見，神的工作很多時候並不是在人最有把握的時候展開，而是在人的有限與缺乏之中慢慢向前。這一點，其實也與亞伯拉罕當年蒙召的經歷彼此呼應。因為神所建立的，從來不是人的王國，而是一條由祂親自保守的應許之路。²

三、就在最孤單的地方，上主主動向雅各顯現

經文簡單地記載：「雅各從別是巴出來，往哈蘭去。」（創 28:10）短短一句話，卻帶著一種深深的孤單。整段旅程之中，沒有人陪伴他，也沒有任何對話。當太陽落下，他只是碰巧來到一個地方，取了一塊石頭放在頭底下，就在那裡過夜。

作者沒有描述他的情緒，也沒有記錄他的禱告。與亞伯拉罕不同，雅各沒有築壇，也沒有呼求上主；經文甚至沒有告訴我們，他是否正在尋找神。然而，也正是在這樣的時候，上主主動向他顯現。

更令人驚訝的是，神並沒有首先責備他，也沒有重新追究第二十七章所發生的一切。祂首先宣告自己的身分：

「我是上主，你祖父亞伯拉罕的神、以撒的神。」（創 28:13）

然後，祂重新向雅各宣告土地、後裔，以及萬國得福的應許。

當雅各以為自己的人生正在瓦解的時候，神卻沒有離開。人的失敗並沒有使神的應許中斷，而人的混亂，也沒有使神停止祂的工作。第二十八章讓人看見，並不是雅各找到了神，而是神先來到雅各面前。³

四、整個異象最重要的，不是階梯，而是上主沒有離開

歷代以來，不少人都好奇那道階梯究竟代表甚麼。然而，作者真正花篇幅記錄的，卻是上主所說的話：

「看啊，我與你同在，我必守護你，無論你往哪裏去，我都要領你回到這土地。因為我決不離棄你，直到我成就了我對你所說的。」（創 28:15）

對一個正在逃亡、前途未明的人而言，這句話甚至比土地、後裔和未來更加重要。因為神並沒有先把所有問題解決。以掃仍然懷著怒氣，前面的道路仍然充滿未知，而等待著雅各的，也將是一段漫長而複雜的歲月。神沒有向他展示未來二十年的細節，也沒有提前把所有答案交給他。

祂只是應許：

「我與你同在。」

而這句話，將會陪伴雅各走過往後漫長的歲月。⁴

五、伯特利成為雅各真正信仰旅程的起點

雅各醒來之後，驚訝地說：「上主真的在這地方，我竟然不知道！」（創 28:16）接著，他又說：「這個地方多麼可畏！這不是別的，這真是神的殿，這是天的門！」（創 28:17）於是，他把那塊曾經作為枕頭的石頭立起來作柱子，又給那地方起名叫伯特利。

有趣的是，當夜甚麼都沒有改變。雅各仍然要繼續上路；他的哥哥沒有與他和好；他的問題沒有立刻得到解決；他仍然是一個流浪的人。然而，有一件事情開始不同了。從前，他一直活在祖父和父親的故事裡。神是亞伯拉罕的神，也是以撒的神，而雅各似乎一直只是這個家族故事中的一部分。然而，在伯特利，上主親自向他顯現。直到這一刻，雅各才開始有屬於自己的經歷。

信仰可以承傳，但沒有人能夠直接繼承別人的經歷。我們可以活在上一代的見證裡，也可以承受別人留下來的祝福，但最終，每一個人都需要有自己的伯特利。對有些人來說，那可能是在青年時期；對另一些人而言，卻可能是在某段失落、孤單，甚至不得不重新開始的日子裡。很多時候，人並不是在一切順利的時候才真正認識神，而是在走投無路的地方，才慢慢發現，原來上主一直都在。⁵

六、雅各的信心，仍然在路上

故事最後，雅各許了一個願：

「如果神與我同在，在我所走的這條路上守護我，給我飯吃、給我衣服穿，使我平安回到我父親的家，上主就必做我的神。」（創 28:20–21）

讀到這裡，我們或許會感到有些意外。因為即使經歷了異象，即使親耳聽見上主的應許，雅各的回應仍然帶著某種條件性的色彩。他似乎仍然在學習相信，也仍然在摸索神究竟是否真的會照祂所說的去行。然而，《創世記》並沒有因此否定雅各。作者沒有急著把他塑造成信心成熟的人，也沒有把伯特利描述成一切問題的終點。相反，這更像是一段漫長旅程的開始。

事實上，接下來等待著雅各的，將是二十年的漫長歲月，是另一個充滿欺騙與張力的家庭，是一次又一次的掙扎與改變。哥哥的怒氣尚未平息，拉班的故事才剛剛開始，而雅各自己也仍然需要經過漫長的塑造，才慢慢學會甚麼叫作信靠。

然而，第二十八章並沒有急著替這一切下結論。它沒有告訴讀者，雅各從此以後便不再跌倒，也沒有告訴讀者，經歷了伯特利之後，一切問題都將迎刃而解。它只是安靜地留下了一個應許：當雅各仍然在路上的時候，上主已經應許與他同行。

雅各仍然在路上。

而神，也仍然與他同行。

結語

從人的角度來看，第二十八章並不是一個成功的開始。雅各正在逃亡，前途未明，甚至連睡覺的地方都沒有。他沒有亞伯拉罕離開吾珥時的從容，也沒有後來以色列十二支派的榮耀；他所擁有的，不過是一塊石頭、一個夢，以及一句「我與你同在」的應許。

然而，也正是在這樣的處境裡，上主親自向他顯現。當雅各以為自己正在失去一切的時候，他並不知道，前面等待著自己的，仍然是漫長的歲月，是更多的掙扎，也是更多的塑造。

伯特利那一夜，並沒有結束他的問題。

但從那一夜開始，在那條不得不走的路上，雅各不再是孤身一人。

而整卷《創世記》接下來的故事，也將慢慢讓人看見，那塊石頭、那個夢，以及那句「我與你同在」的應許，將如何陪伴他走過往後漫長的一生。

Antony 傳道

---

註腳

¹ Gordon J. Wenham, Genesis 16–50 (WBC 2; Dallas: Word Books, 1994), 221–224.

² Victor P. Hamilton, The Book of Genesis: Chapters 18–50 (NICOT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995), 237–240.

³ Gerhard von Rad, Genesis: A Commentary, rev. ed. (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1972), 287–290.

⁴ Bruce K. Waltke, Genesis: A Commentary (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2001), 382–387.

⁵ John H. Sailhamer, The Pentateuch as Narrative (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1992), 206–209.

《在起初的故事裡：重新學習作神的子民》- 《創世記》系列：第二十六篇：〈當每一個人都想抓住祝福，失去的卻比得到的更多〉

經文：創世記 27:1–46（新漢語譯本）

一、讀到第二十七章時，我們往往先想到欺騙，卻忽略了這個家庭早已出現裂縫

對不少基督徒而言，創世記第二十七章最深刻的印象，往往是雅各欺騙父親、奪取祝福的故事。因此，很多人自然會問：雅各這樣做對嗎？神是否默許他的手段？甚至有人會感到困惑，為甚麼最後得到祝福的人，竟然是那位用計謀的人。然而，若仔細閱讀，便會發現，這場危機其實並不是從第二十七章才開始。

早在前一章，作者已經讓讀者看見這個家庭裡長久存在的張力。「以撒愛以掃，因為有獵物給他吃；利百加卻愛雅各。」（創25:28）這一句看似平淡的描述，其實已經為後來的衝突埋下伏筆。父親偏愛長子，母親偏愛幼子；兩個兒子在不同的期待之中長大；而那位曾經向利百加宣告「大的要服侍小的」（創25:23）的上主，似乎慢慢被放到家庭關係的邊緣。因此，第二十七章所呈現的，並不是一場突如其來的欺騙，而是一個早已失去平衡的家庭，在長久累積的偏愛與張力之下，終於走向破裂。若把這段經文孤立地看成一場單純的欺騙事件，反而容易忽略作者早已鋪陳多時的家庭張力。¹

二、每一個人都希望事情按照自己認為最好的方式發展

故事開始時，以撒知道自己年老，兩眼昏花，不知道哪一天便會離世，於是希望在死前為長子以掃祝福。從人的角度來看，這並沒有甚麼奇怪。以掃是長子，也是他一直所疼愛的兒子。然而，讀者知道，神昔日早已向利百加說過：「大的要服侍小的。」（創25:23）於是，當利百加聽見丈夫與以掃的對話，她立刻開始安排一切，希望雅各能夠得到祝福。

值得留意的是，整個故事裡，沒有一個人真正拒絕神。以撒並非不相信神，只是他仍然想按照自己的方式安排未來；利百加也不是不相信神，她甚至可能因為記得神昔日的應許，所以決定主動介入；雅各雖然有所遲疑，但經文並沒有告訴我們他真正擔心的是甚麼，只記載他害怕被父親識破，結果招來咒詛；至於以掃，雖然曾經輕看長子的名分，如今卻不願失去長子的祝福。

於是，一幅十分諷刺的圖畫便呈現在讀者眼前。每一個人都相信祝福的重要，每一個人也都希望事情按照自己所理解的方向發展。然而，也正是在這個過程之中，每一個人都開始依靠自己的方法，而不再願意等待神自己的時間。這一幕，其實讓人想起亞伯拉罕與撒拉在夏甲事件中的經歷。人未必是不信，只是當等待變得漫長，當未來變得不確定，人便很容易開始用自己的方法，推動神的工作向前。²

三、得著祝福的人，並沒有因此得著平安

當雅各假扮以掃來到父親面前時，整段經文充滿一種令人不安的氣氛。以撒雖然眼睛昏花，卻仍然察覺到事情有些不對。

「這聲音是雅各的聲音，這雙手卻是以掃的手。」（創27:22）

然而，最終，他還是為雅各祝福。

緊接著，以掃回來了。當真相揭開的時候，經文沒有描述任何人的喜樂，反而充滿震動與眼淚。

「以撒就顫抖，大大顫抖不已。」（創27:33）

「以掃一聽他父親的話就哭號，大聲哭號，痛心不已。」（創27:34）

當讀者回頭再看整個故事時，便會發現，真正令人感到意外的，不是雅各是否得著祝福，而是得著祝福之後，這個家庭並沒有因此恢復平安。以撒仍然顫抖，以掃仍然痛哭，利百加開始害怕，而雅各則必須離開家園。

值得留意的是，以掃的眼淚是真實的，他的痛苦也是可以理解的。然而，作者早已提醒讀者，那位如今如此珍惜祝福的人，曾經為了一碗紅湯，輕易放棄長子的名分。因此，第二十七章並沒有把任何一個人簡單地分成受害者與加害者。每一個人都有自己的責任，也都活在自己的有限之中。《創世記》的人物從來不是理想化的英雄，他們的信心與軟弱、盼望與自私，往往交織在一起，而作者也刻意保留這種複雜性。³

四、神的應許沒有失敗，但人的傷痕卻是真實的

創世記第二十七章最成熟的地方，在於作者既沒有否定神的恩典，也沒有淡化人的責任。

神的應許並沒有因此失敗。雅各確實成為承受應許的人，而神昔日向利百加所說的話，也最終成為事實。然而，這並不表示人的方法沒有後果。

以掃因為失去祝福而懷恨在心，甚至決定在父親離世之後殺死雅各。利百加聽見之後，只能趕緊安排兒子逃往哈蘭。最令人感到唏噓的是，她對雅各說：

「等你哥哥的怒氣轉消，忘記你對他所做的事，我就派人把你從那裏接回來。」（創27:45）

然而，從此以後，聖經再沒有記載這對母子重聚。

那位最希望保護雅各的人，很可能再也沒有見過自己的兒子。

有時候，我們很容易把神的恩典理解成「一切最終都會變好」，然而《創世記》卻沒有如此簡單。神的應許確實繼續向前，但這並不表示人所造成的傷害會自動消失。以掃心中的怨恨是真實的，雅各的流亡是真實的，而利百加的失去，同樣是真實的。聖經沒有試圖否認這些傷痕，反而容許它們留在故事之中。神的信實與人的責任，並不是互相排斥，而是共同構成這段敘事的重量。⁴

五、真正維繫這個故事的，從來不是人的完全

若從人的角度來看，第二十七章幾乎是一場徹底的混亂。一位偏愛長子的父親，一位急於保護兒子的母親，一位習慣抓住機會的弟弟，以及一位充滿怨恨的哥哥。沒有一個人真正像信心英雄。

或許，第二十七章最令人不安的地方，正在於我們很容易在這個家庭裡，看見自己的影子。我們未必像雅各一樣欺騙，也未必像利百加一樣安排一切；然而，我們同樣會害怕失去，同樣會急於推動事情發展，也同樣希望透過自己的方法，把一些重要的人和事牢牢抓在手中。

因此，這段經文真正向讀者提出的問題，也許不是「誰對誰錯」，而是：當事情不在我們掌握之中的時候，我們是否仍然願意相信，上主仍然能夠完成祂自己的工作？

創世記第二十七章，也許是整卷《創世記》最令人唏噓的一章。因為在這個家庭裡，沒有真正的贏家。得到祝福的人開始流浪；失去祝福的人心中充滿怨恨；最愛兒子的母親，很可能從此再沒有見過自己的兒子；而那位想把祝福留給長子的父親，也只能在震驚與顫抖之中，看著整個家庭慢慢分裂。

然而，令人驚訝的是，《創世記》並沒有在這裡畫上句號。作者沒有急於修補所有關係，也沒有急於替每一個人辯護。他只是讓這些眼淚、怨恨、後悔與傷痕停留在故事之中。而也正是在這片混亂之中，下一章，那位正在逃亡的雅各，將要在曠野之中遇見神。

原來，真正維繫這個故事的，從來不是人的完全，而是那位在人最混亂、最破碎、甚至最無法挽回的時候，仍然不離不棄的上主。《創世記》一再讓人看見，真正推動救贖歷史向前的，並不是人物本身的成功，而是神自己對祂應許的信實。⁵

Antony 傳道

---

註腳

¹ Gordon J. Wenham, Genesis 16–50 (WBC 2; Dallas: Word Books, 1994), 205–208.

² Victor P. Hamilton, The Book of Genesis: Chapters 18–50 (NICOT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995), 217–221.

³ Gerhard von Rad, Genesis: A Commentary, rev. ed. (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1972), 281–285.

⁴ Bruce K. Waltke, Genesis: A Commentary (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2001), 374–379.

⁵ John H. Sailhamer, The Pentateuch as Narrative (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1992), 201–204.

《從浸信會傳統、歷史與神學重新思想教會（實踐篇）》（十三） 真正承傳的是甚麼？ ——浸信會真正留下的，不是一套制度，而是一種對教會的信念

 

如果說，第十二篇所談的是下一代領袖如何被辨識、陪伴、成全和差派，那麼來到整個《從浸信會傳統、歷史與神學重新思想教會（實踐篇）》的最後，一個更根本的問題便自然浮現：究竟，一間教會真正能夠長久延續下去，所依靠的是甚麼？

很多時候，我們很自然會想到制度。我們關心章程是否完善、架構是否清晰、委員會是否健全、領袖培育是否完整，也希望建立一套足以支撐教會未來發展的治理模式。然而，當一路回顧浸信會四百多年的歷史，我愈來愈相信，一間教會真正能夠長久延續，所依靠的從來不只是制度，而是一群人共同相信：基督今天仍然在祂的教會中掌權，聖靈今天仍然在祂的百姓中工作。教會不是一個依靠制度維持運作的組織，而是一個願意一起尋求神心意、一起承擔使命、一起跟隨基督的屬靈群體。

這並不是否定制度的重要。健康的制度本身就是神所賜的恩典。制度能夠建立界線、保護群體、避免權力被濫用，也使教會的運作更有秩序。然而，制度真正的價值，不是在於取代生命，而是在於保護生命；不是取代信任，而是在信任受到考驗時，仍然守護整個群體。因此，制度與關係從來不是彼此競爭，而是彼此成全。制度可以維持秩序，卻不能產生生命；制度可以規範程序，卻不能建立信任。真正讓制度發揮作用的，不是制度本身，而是制度背後那群願意彼此信任、共同承擔，也共同順服基督的人。

這正是浸信會教會觀最獨特的地方。艾德加．楊．穆林斯（E. Y. Mullins）提出「靈魂自由」（Soul Competency）的觀念，相信每一位重生得救的信徒，都能直接來到神面前回應祂，也相信聖靈願意向每一位信徒工作。¹ 正因如此，浸信會一直強調信徒皆祭司、地方教會自治，以及整個群體共同承擔教會的方向。它沒有一個中央權威代替地方教會作所有決定，也不認為真理只掌握在少數領袖手中，而是相信神願意透過整個教會，引導祂自己的教會。

然而，這些信念從來都不是一套行政制度，而是一種對教會的信念。信徒皆祭司，需要相信神也會向別人工作；地方教會自治，需要相信整個群體都需要一起承擔；共同辨識，需要相信神不只帶領個人，也帶領整個教會。若失去這份相信，信徒皆祭司便容易變成人各有理；地方教會自治便容易變成各自為政；會眾治理便可能退化成單純的多數決文化；共同辨識也容易變成沒完沒了的爭論。浸信會四百多年來一直努力守護的，其實不是某一套制度，而是這份共同的信念：神仍然透過整個群體工作。

回頭再看，整個《從浸信會傳統、歷史與神學重新思想教會》其實並不是十三個彼此獨立的課題，而是一段由神學走向實踐的旅程。我們從信徒皆祭司開始，相信聖靈向每一位信徒工作，因此重新思想地方教會自治，以及群體如何共同辨識神的心意。然後，我們重新理解委員會文化、不同聲音、領袖培育，以及世代承傳。我們談重要的事情需要慢下來，是因為相信神的工作不能只靠效率；我們談共同辨識，是因為相信聖靈不只帶領個人，也帶領整個群體；我們談委員會文化，是因為程序不能代替生命；我們談不同聲音，是因為真正的合一並不等於所有人都完全一致；我們談領袖培育與世代承傳，是因為真正的領袖不是被制度製造出來，而是在群體中被辨識、被陪伴，也被差派。最後，我們發現，這一切真正關心的，從來不是建立一套更完善的制度，而是建立一個願意一起相信神、一起跟隨基督、一起承擔使命的群體。

然而，今天許多加拿大華人教會所面對的挑戰，也正正在這裡。移民流動頻繁，世代文化差異愈來愈大，生活節奏愈來愈急速。很多教會一起聚會多年，卻未必真正同行多年；一起事奉多年，卻未必真正認識彼此。我們知道誰負責哪一個部門，也知道誰擔任哪一個職位，卻未必知道對方生命中的故事、屬靈的掙扎，以及神如何一路塑造他的生命。

因此，有人會問：如果建立信任需要多年同行，那麼流動率如此高的移民教會，還有可能建立真正的信任嗎？

也許，我們一直把問題問反了。

很多人以為，只有建立足夠的信任之後，教會才能開始共同辨識；然而，也許事情正好相反。

共同辨識，本身就是建立信任的重要途徑。

當教會願意一起禱告、一起查考聖經、一起分享、一起等待、一起聆聽，信任便在這些過程中慢慢形成。共同辨識從來不只是一套決策程序，更是一種屬靈操練。在這個過程裡，我們慢慢發現：即使彼此有不同意見，我們仍然可以一起尋求神；即使自己的建議沒有被採納，自己的聲音仍然受到尊重；即使最後作出的決定不是自己原本期待的，我們仍然願意相信，神仍然在整個群體中工作。真正持久的信任，不是因為大家沒有分歧，而是因為大家願意一起把自己的想法放在神的心意之下，一起順服基督，也一起承擔群體所作出的決定。

這也正是新約所描繪的教會。保羅很少把教會描述成一個組織，他更喜歡使用身體、家庭和團契等充滿關係性的圖像。教會不是一群因共同利益而聚集的人，而是一群因基督而彼此連結的人。潘霍華（Dietrich Bonhoeffer）提醒我們，真正的基督徒群體不是建立在人彼此理想化的期待，而是建立在基督已經接納我們的恩典之上。² 史丹利．葛倫茲（Stanley J. Grenz）則指出，人是按著三一上帝群體性的形象受造，因此基督徒生命的成熟，不是在孤立之中完成，而是在彼此相愛、彼此建立之中長成基督的身量。³ 正因如此，真正承載使命的，往往不是架構，而是生命；不是程序，而是同行。很少有人會為一套制度付上生命，但很多人會為一群自己所愛的人付上生命；很少有人會因為一份章程而留下來，卻有很多人因為被接納、被信任、被同行，而願意繼續留在教會。

回顧浸信會四百多年的歷史，我愈來愈相信，它留給今天教會最珍貴的，不是一套治理制度，也不是一套行政程序。

它留下的，是一個信念。

相信基督今天仍然在祂的教會中掌權。

相信聖靈今天仍然在祂的百姓中工作。

相信神仍然透過一群願意彼此信任、共同辨識、彼此承擔的人，引導祂的教會。

或許，這才是浸信會真正承傳給今天教會最珍貴的遺產。

它所承傳的，不是一套制度。

而是一種教會觀。

它相信，教會不是一個依靠制度維持運作的組織，而是一群因著基督彼此相連、因著聖靈共同辨識、因著福音一起承擔使命的人。

這也是我寫下整個《從浸信會傳統、歷史與神學重新思想教會》最大的盼望。

我並不是希望每一間教會都變成同一個樣子，也不是希望所有浸信會都採用同一套制度或做法。

我真正盼望的是，今天每一間教會，都願意再次相信：基督仍然掌權，聖靈仍然工作，教會仍然可以一起辨識神的心意。

或許，每一個時代都有自己的挑戰，每一間教會也都有不同的處境。我們未必會作出相同的決定，也未必會建立相同的制度。然而，只要我們仍然願意彼此信任、共同辨識、一起承擔，也一起順服基督，我相信教會便仍然走在主一直帶領祂教會前行的道路上。

因為直到今天，真正建立教會的，仍然不是人的智慧。

而是那位仍然在祂教會中工作的主。

Antony傳道

---

註腳

1. 艾德加．楊．穆林斯（E. Y. Mullins，1860–1928），《The Axioms of Religion》（Philadelphia: Judson Press, 1908），53–74。穆林斯是二十世紀最具影響力的浸信會神學家之一，提出「靈魂自由」（Soul Competency）的觀念，強調每一位重生得救的信徒都能直接向神負責，並在聖靈引導下回應神，成為浸信會「信徒皆祭司」及地方教會自治的重要神學基礎。另參 詹姆斯．李奧．加勒特（James Leo Garrett Jr.，1925–2020），《Baptist Theology: A Four-Century Study》（Macon: Mercer University Press, 2009），169–188。加勒特指出，浸信會的治理模式並非單純的民主制度，而是建立在整個群體共同順服基督、共同承擔使命的信念之上。

2. 潘霍華（Dietrich Bonhoeffer，1906–1945），《Life Together》（New York: HarperOne, 1954），21–39。潘霍華是德國路德宗牧師及神學家，因參與反抗納粹政權而殉道。他指出，真正的基督徒群體不是建立在人彼此理想化的期待，而是建立在基督已經接納我們的恩典之上。

3. 史丹利．葛倫茲（Stanley J. Grenz，1950–2005），《Created for Community: Connecting Christian Belief with Christian Living》（Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 1998），143–170。葛倫茲是加拿大浸信會神學家，也是當代福音派重要神學家之一。他強調人是按著三一上帝群體性的形象受造，因此基督徒生命的成熟，必須在群體生活、彼此相愛與共同建立中實現，而非停留於個人主義的信仰。

---

Rethinking the Church through Baptist Tradition, History, and Theology (Practical Reflections)
Part 13 - What Is the True Legacy? The Baptist tradition has not primarily handed down a system of governance, but a theological vision of the church.

If the previous chapter explored how the next generation of leaders is discerned, accompanied, equipped, and sent, then, as we arrive at the final chapter of Rethinking the Church through Baptist Tradition, History, and Theology (Practical Reflections), a more fundamental question naturally emerges: What truly enables a church to endure across generations?

Our instinctive answer is often structure. We concern ourselves with constitutions, organizational charts, committees, leadership development, and governance models. We seek systems capable of sustaining the church’s future. Yet, as I have reflected upon more than four centuries of Baptist history, I have become increasingly convinced that what ultimately enables a church to endure is not merely its institutions, but a shared conviction: that Christ still reigns over His church today, and that the Holy Spirit continues to work among His people.

The church is therefore not simply an organization held together by structures. It is a spiritual community that continually seeks God’s will, shares His mission, and follows Christ together.

This is not to diminish the importance of structure. Healthy structures are themselves gifts from God. They establish appropriate boundaries, protect the community, guard against the abuse of authority, and enable the church to function with wisdom and order. Yet the true purpose of structure is never to replace life, but to safeguard it; never to substitute for trust, but to preserve trust when it is tested. Structure and relationships are therefore not competitors but partners. Structure can preserve order, but it cannot generate life. It can regulate procedures, but it cannot create trust. Ultimately, what gives structure its true meaning is not the structure itself, but the people behind it—a people willing to trust one another, bear responsibility together, and submit together to the lordship of Christ.

Here we arrive at one of the distinctive contributions of Baptist ecclesiology. E. Y. Mullins’ doctrine of Soul Competency teaches that every regenerated believer is able to respond directly to God and that the Holy Spirit works through every believer.¹ Because of this conviction, Baptists have consistently emphasized the priesthood of all believers, local church autonomy, and the shared responsibility of the whole congregation in discerning the church’s direction. Rather than entrusting ultimate authority to a centralized hierarchy or assuming that truth resides exclusively in a select group of leaders, Baptists have long believed that God continues to lead His church through the gathered community of believers.

Yet these convictions were never meant to function merely as a system of church administration. They express a particular way of understanding what the church truly is.

The priesthood of all believers requires us to believe that God also speaks through others.

Local church autonomy requires us to believe that the whole congregation shares responsibility before Christ.

Communal discernment requires us to believe that God leads not only individuals but also His church as a whole.

Once this conviction is lost, however, each of these Baptist distinctives begins to unravel. The priesthood of all believers can deteriorate into individualism, where everyone insists on being right. Local church autonomy can fragment into congregational isolation. Congregational governance can deteriorate into mere majority rule. Communal discernment can dissolve into endless debate.

For more than four centuries, what Baptists have sought to preserve has never simply been a particular ecclesiastical system. Rather, they have sought to preserve a shared conviction—that God continues to work through His people as a community.

Looking back, this entire Rethinking the Church through Baptist Tradition, History, and Theology series has never really consisted of thirteen unrelated topics. Rather, it has traced a theological journey from conviction to practice.

We began with the priesthood of all believers, affirming that the Holy Spirit works through every believer. From there we reconsidered local church autonomy and the way God’s people discern His will together. We then reflected on committee culture, differing voices within the congregation, leadership development, and intergenerational succession. We argued that important decisions require us to slow down because God’s work cannot simply be measured by efficiency. We emphasized communal discernment because the Holy Spirit guides not merely individuals but the whole body of Christ. We re-examined committee culture because procedures can never replace spiritual life. We considered differing voices because genuine unity is not the same as uniformity. We reflected on leadership development and intergenerational succession because authentic leaders are not manufactured by institutional systems but are discerned, accompanied, equipped, and ultimately sent by the community of faith.

In the end, we discovered that the central concern behind all these discussions has never been the construction of a more sophisticated organizational system. Rather, it has been the formation of a community willing to believe God together, follow Christ together, and bear His mission together.

Yet this is precisely where many Chinese churches in Canada face one of their greatest challenges today. Immigration has made congregations increasingly transient. Generational and cultural differences continue to widen. The pace of life grows ever faster. Many believers have worshiped together for years without truly journeying together. They have served alongside one another without ever deeply knowing one another. We know who oversees each ministry and who occupies each leadership position, yet we often know very little about one another’s stories, spiritual struggles, or the ways in which God has patiently shaped each person’s life.

This naturally raises an important question:

If trust requires years of walking together, can immigrant churches—with such constant movement and transition—ever cultivate genuine trust?

Perhaps we have been asking the wrong question.

Many assume that a church must first establish sufficient trust before it can practise communal discernment.

Perhaps the opposite is true.

Communal discernment is itself one of God’s primary means of cultivating trust.

When the church chooses to pray together, study Scripture together, share openly, wait patiently, and listen carefully to one another, trust is gradually formed through those very practices. Communal discernment is not merely a decision-making process; it is a spiritual discipline.

Through this process, we gradually discover that even when we disagree, we can still seek God’s will together. Even when our own proposals are not adopted, our voices can still be genuinely heard and respected. Even when the final decision differs from what we had hoped for, we may still trust that God continues to work through the whole community.

Lasting trust, therefore, is not the absence of disagreement. Rather, it is the willingness of God’s people to place their own preferences beneath God’s will, to submit together to Christ, and to bear together the responsibility of the decisions made by the community.

This is precisely the picture of the church presented throughout the New Testament. Paul rarely describes the church as an organization. Instead, he consistently speaks of it as a body, a family, and a fellowship—images that are profoundly relational in nature. The church is not a gathering of people united merely by common interests; it is a people united in Christ.

Dietrich Bonhoeffer reminds us that authentic Christian community is not built upon our idealized expectations of one another but upon the grace by which Christ has already accepted us.² Stanley J. Grenz likewise argues that humanity is created in the image of the triune God, whose very being is relational. Consequently, Christian maturity is never achieved in isolation but is formed through mutual love, mutual edification, and shared life within the community of believers.³

For this reason, what ultimately carries the mission of the church is rarely its organizational structure, but its shared life; not its procedures, but its fellowship.

Few people would willingly lay down their lives for an institution.

Many would gladly do so for people whom they genuinely love.

Few remain in a church because of its constitution.

Many remain because they have been accepted, trusted, and accompanied by fellow believers.

Looking back over more than four centuries of Baptist history, I have become increasingly convinced that the most precious legacy handed down to the church today is neither a particular form of church government nor an administrative system.

It is a theological vision of the church.

It is the conviction that Christ continues to reign over His church today.

It is the conviction that the Holy Spirit continues to work among God’s people today.

It is the conviction that God continues to guide His church through a community willing to trust one another, practise communal discernment together, and share responsibility together.

Perhaps this is the Baptist tradition’s greatest gift to the church today.

What it has handed down is not primarily a system.

It has handed down a theological vision of what the church truly is.

It believes that the church is not an organization held together merely by structures, but a people united in Christ, discerning together through the Holy Spirit, and bearing God’s mission together through the gospel.

This has been my deepest hope in writing this entire series, Rethinking the Church through Baptist Tradition, History, and Theology (Practical Reflections).

My hope has never been that every church should become identical, nor that every Baptist church should adopt precisely the same structures or methods.

Rather, I hope that churches today will once again believe that Christ still reigns, that the Holy Spirit still speaks, and that the church is still capable of discerning God’s will together.

Every generation faces its own challenges, and every congregation serves within its own unique context. We will not always reach the same conclusions, nor should every church necessarily adopt the same structures. Yet as long as we remain willing to trust one another, discern together, bear responsibility together, and submit ourselves together to Christ, I believe the church will continue to walk along the path on which the Lord Himself has always led His people.

For even today, the church is ultimately not built by human wisdom.

It is built by the Lord who continues to work in the midst of His church.

---

Notes

1. E. Y. Mullins (Edgar Young Mullins, 1860–1928), The Axioms of Religion (Philadelphia: Judson Press, 1908), 53–74. Mullins, one of the most influential Baptist theologians of the twentieth century, developed the doctrine of Soul Competency, emphasizing that every regenerated believer bears personal responsibility before God and is able to respond directly to Him under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. This conviction became one of the theological foundations for both the priesthood of all believers and local church autonomy within the Baptist tradition. See also James Leo Garrett Jr. (1925–2020), Baptist Theology: A Four-Century Study (Macon: Mercer University Press, 2009), 169–188. Garrett argues that Baptist polity is not simply a democratic mechanism but is grounded in the shared conviction that the entire congregation is called to submit together to Christ and to participate together in His mission.

2. Dietrich Bonhoeffer (1906–1945), Life Together (New York: HarperOne, 1954), 21–39. Bonhoeffer, a German Lutheran pastor and theologian who was executed for his resistance to the Nazi regime, argues that authentic Christian community is grounded not in our idealized expectations of one another but in Christ’s gracious acceptance of us.

3. Stanley J. Grenz (1950–2005), Created for Community: Connecting Christian Belief with Christian Living (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 1998), 143–170. Grenz, a Canadian Baptist theologian and one of the leading evangelical theologians of his generation, contends that human beings are created in the image of the triune God. Consequently, Christian maturity is cultivated not through isolated individualism but through life together, mutual love, and shared participation within the community of faith.

《從浸信會傳統、歷史與神學重新思想教會（實踐篇）》（十二） 教會如何興起下一代領袖？ ——從「信徒皆祭司」重新思想辨識、培育與差派

如果說，第十一篇談的是共同辨識最大的張力，那麼一個更長遠，也更令許多教會關心的問題便自然浮現：當上一代逐漸退下來，誰來承接下一棒？而下一代領袖，又是如何被興起的？

今天，無論是華人教會、浸信會，還是其他宗派，每當談到教會未來，我們很自然便想到接班、承傳、培訓和領袖發展。我們會設計不同的課程，建立實習制度，安排領袖訓練，希望預備更多弟兄姊妹承擔事奉。然而，當我重新回顧浸信會四百多年的歷史，也重新思想「信徒皆祭司」這項核心信念時，我愈來愈覺得，這些都不是最根本的問題。浸信會真正關心的，從來不是「誰來接替哪一個位置」，而是「神今天正在祂的教會裡興起誰」。

這兩種問題，看似只是先後次序不同，背後卻代表兩種完全不同的教會觀。如果我們首先想到的是培養領袖，焦點便很容易放在制度、課程、技術和安排，希望透過教會把一個人塑造成領袖。然而，如果我們首先想到的是辨識神所興起的人，焦點便不再是「誰最有能力」，而是「神是否已經在這個人的生命裡工作」。真正的領袖，不是教會創造出來，而是神先興起，教會再認出來；不是人先決定，神再祝福，而是神先工作，群體再共同辨識。因此，對浸信會而言，領袖的興起首先是一種辨識，然後才是培育，最後才是差派。¹

而這正是「信徒皆祭司」另一個經常被忽略的面向。我們談到信徒皆祭司時，很容易想到每一位信徒都能直接來到神面前，也都需要對自己的信仰負責。然而，這項信念同時意味著，聖靈並不是只向少數領袖工作，而是向整個教會群體工作。因此，神所興起的人，也可能來自群體中的任何一個角落。健康的教會，不是一直尋找領袖，而是不斷興起領袖；健康的領袖，也不是不斷尋找接班人，而是不斷學習辨認神正在誰身上工作。

因此，真正健康的教會文化，首先不是建立一套完善的領袖培訓制度，而是建立一個願意辨識恩賜、相信聖靈工作的群體。而這種辨識，很少是在一次會議、一份名單或一套評估表裡完成。更多時候，它是在長時間的同行之中慢慢形成。教牧、執事、小組長和弟兄姊妹，在一起服事、一起禱告、一起經歷失敗、一起面對張力的過程裡，逐漸看見神在某一個人的生命中工作。他未必是最有恩賜的人，也未必是最善於表達的人，更未必符合大家原本想像中的領袖模樣；但他在平凡的事奉中表現出忠心，在困難中願意學習，在衝突裡仍然保持謙卑，也愈來愈流露出基督的生命。於是，整個群體開始慢慢認出：也許，神正在呼召這個人。某程度上，辨識並不是「揀選誰做領袖」，而是一起學習認出神已經在誰身上工作。

然而，辨識只是開始。真正需要培育的，又是甚麼？

今天很多教會談領袖培育時，首先想到的是能力。我們安排課程、工作坊和實習，希望幫助人學習帶查經、帶小組、主持會議、管理團隊和推動事工。這些能力十分重要，也是教會健康運作不可缺少的一部分。然而，能力並不等於成熟。我愈來愈覺得，一位成熟的領袖，需要三個向度一起成長：恩賜（Gift）、生命（Character）與呼召（Calling）。

恩賜，是神所賜予的能力；生命，是基督塑造的品格；呼召，則使一個人知道自己為何而服事。能力，使人能夠承擔工作；生命，使人能夠承受權柄；呼召，使人知道自己為何而事奉。真正成熟的領袖，不是三方面都已經完全，而是在群體裡願意讓這三方面一起慢慢成熟。

可惜的是，這三者並不一定同步。有些人恩賜十分明顯，做事能力很強，卻仍然不容易受教，也不容易與人同行；有些人生命成熟，充滿忠心與愛心，卻仍然缺乏經驗；也有人同時具備恩賜與生命，卻仍未真正明白神給他的呼召。若教會只看恩賜，很容易把最能幹的人推上領導位置；若只強調生命，又可能讓真正有恩賜的人一直沒有機會承擔責任；若忽略呼召，則容易把事奉變成一份工作，而不是一個使命。因此，真正健康的領袖培育，從來不是只追求其中一方面，而是陪伴一個人的恩賜、生命與呼召一起成長。

保羅正是這樣陪伴提摩太。當他回顧提摩太與自己同行的歲月時，首先提到的，不是技巧，也不是成就，而是他的教訓、品行、志向、信心、寬容、愛心和忍耐（提後3:10–14）。² 保羅最重視的，不是提摩太有多能幹，而是他的生命是否愈來愈像基督。因此，他並沒有對提摩太說：「你完成了我的課程。」相反，他提醒提摩太：「你知道是跟誰學的。」提摩太之所以成為提摩太，不只是因為他學會了一套神學，而是因為他長時間看見保羅如何跟隨基督，也在同行中學習活出同樣的生命。

羅伯特．柯爾曼（Robert E. Coleman）曾指出，耶穌改變世界最重要的方法，不是建立一套大量生產門徒的制度，而是長時間陪伴一小群人，把自己的生命投資在他們身上。³ 浸信會歷史同樣印證了這一點。托馬斯．赫爾維斯（Thomas Helwys）、羅傑．威廉斯（Roger Williams）、威廉．克理（William Carey），以及羅蒂．穆恩（Lottie Moon），都不是因為符合某一套既定條件才被神使用，而是在不同世代裡，被群體逐漸辨認出神的呼召。克理原本只是鞋匠；羅蒂．穆恩更是一位在當時並不符合傳統期待的女性宣教士。然而，神卻透過他們改變了浸信會，甚至改變了近代宣教的歷史。這些人物共同提醒我們：神所興起的人，未必總是符合我們原本的想像。

這一點，對今天加拿大華人教會尤其重要。許多第二代成長於兩種文化之間，他們的語言、敬拜方式、事奉模式，以及對教會的期待，都可能與第一代不同。第一代所重視的忠心、責任和委身，第二代可能更重視真誠、關係和意義。這並不代表誰比較屬靈，而是成熟的表達方式，本身便會受到文化影響。因此，上一代需要學習的不只是培養下一代，更是重新學習辨識下一代。我們需要問的，不只是「他是否像我們」，而是「神是否正在他身上工作」。真正的辨識，不是尋找自己的翻版，而是認出神新的工作。

我曾經看見一些教會，在多年門徒訓練的文化裡，一批又一批年輕人慢慢成為小組長、宣教士、傳道人，甚至牧者。那些教會最大的特色，不是因為他們擁有最完整的領袖課程，也未必因為他們有最精密的制度，而是因為整個群體始終相信：神今天仍然會在普通信徒當中興起工人。因此，當他們看見一個人身上的恩賜、生命與呼召時，便願意給予信任、陪伴、機會和時間，讓他在事奉中慢慢成熟。相反，也有一些教會擁有完善的制度和架構，卻因為害怕犯錯，而愈來愈少願意冒險相信人。於是，教會有很多職位，卻沒有人；有很多需要，卻沒有呼召；有很多做事的人，卻愈來愈少生命成熟的人。

或許，今天許多加拿大華人浸信會最大的危機，不是缺乏課程，也不是缺乏制度，而是愈來愈不像一個能夠興起人的群體。

真正能夠興起領袖的教會，不一定是最擅長安排課程的教會，而是一間願意一起辨識（Discern）、陪伴（Accompany）、成全（Empower），並且**差派（Send）**神已經在其中工作之人的教會。

因此，下一代領袖真正的問題，從來不是：「誰來接下一棒？」

而是：「我們是否仍然相信，神今天仍然在祂的教會裡興起工人？而當神興起人時，我們是否願意一起認出他、陪伴他、成全他，也歡喜地差派他？」

Antony傳道

---

註腳

1. 埃德加．楊．穆林斯（Edgar Young Mullins, 1860–1928），《The Axioms of Religion》（Philadelphia: Judson Press, 1908）, 53–74。穆林斯是二十世紀最具影響力的浸信會神學家之一，提出「靈魂自由」（Soul Competency）與「信徒皆祭司」的重要思想，強調神直接向每一位信徒工作，因此教會需要共同辨識神所興起的人。
2. 《提摩太後書》3:10–14。
3. 羅伯特．柯爾曼（Robert E. Coleman, 1928–2018），《The Master Plan of Evangelism》（Grand Rapids: Revell, 1993）, 21–43。
4. 托馬斯．赫爾維斯（Thomas Helwys, 約1575–1616） 為英國浸信會創始人物之一，主張宗教自由與地方教會自治；羅傑．威廉斯（Roger Williams, 約1603–1683） 創立美洲第一間浸信會，倡導政教分離與良心自由；威廉．克理（William Carey, 1761–1834） 被譽為「近代宣教之父」，原為鞋匠，後成為印度宣教士；羅蒂．穆恩（Lottie Moon, 1840–1912） 為美南浸信會宣教士，在中國宣教近四十年，其名字後來成為浸信會著名的「羅蒂．穆恩聖誕宣教奉獻」（Lottie Moon Christmas Offering）。他們共同見證：神常常興起那些原本不被人看好的人，而教會真正的責任，是辨識、陪伴、成全，並歡喜地差派神所興起的工人。

---

Rethinking the Church through Baptist Tradition, History, and Theology
Practical Reflections

Part 12 : How Does the Church Raise Up the Next Generation of Leaders?

Rethinking Discernment, Formation, and Sending through the Priesthood of All Believers

If Part 11 explored one of the greatest challenges of communal discernment, another question naturally follows—one that is both more far-reaching and deeply felt by many churches today.

As one generation gradually steps aside, who will carry the ministry forward? More fundamentally, how does God raise up the next generation of leaders within His church?

Whether in Chinese churches, Baptist churches, or virtually any Christian tradition, conversations about the future almost always turn to succession, leadership development, mentoring, and training. Churches establish internship programs, design leadership courses, and develop various pathways to prepare believers for ministry. All of these are valuable, and healthy churches should continue to invest in them.

Yet as I have revisited four centuries of Baptist history and reflected afresh on one of the movement’s defining convictions—the priesthood of all believers—I have become increasingly convinced that these are not the most fundamental questions.

The Baptist concern has never primarily been, Who will replace this leader?

Rather, it has always been, Whom is God already raising up within His church today?

Although these questions may appear similar, they arise from two profoundly different ways of understanding the church.

If our starting point is leadership development, our attention naturally gravitates toward structures, curricula, competencies, and organizational planning. We hope that through intentional training the church can produce capable leaders for the future.

But if our starting point is discerning the people whom God is already raising up, our attention shifts in a very different direction. The central question is no longer, Who seems most capable? but rather, Where is God already at work?

Within the Baptist tradition, authentic leadership is never something the church manufactures by its own efforts. God calls first, and the church learns to recognize His work. God acts before the church appoints. Leadership therefore follows a profoundly theological order: **discernment comes first, formation follows, and sending comes last.**¹

---

The Priesthood of All Believers and the Work of Discernment

This conviction grows naturally out of one of the Baptist tradition’s most treasured doctrines—the priesthood of all believers.

When Baptists speak of this doctrine, attention often focuses on the truth that every believer has direct access to God and bears personal responsibility for responding to His Word. That is certainly true, but it is only part of what this doctrine affirms.

It also declares that the Holy Spirit is not at work only among pastors, elders, or a handful of recognized leaders. The Spirit is present throughout the entire body of Christ. Consequently, those whom God intends to raise up may emerge from any corner of the congregation.

Healthy churches, therefore, do not spend most of their energy searching for future leaders. Instead, they become communities that continually recognize the people whom God is already raising up.

Likewise, mature leaders are less preoccupied with finding successors than with learning to discern where the Holy Spirit is already bearing fruit among God’s people.

The first priority, then, is not to construct an increasingly sophisticated leadership pipeline. It is to cultivate a community that genuinely believes the Holy Spirit is still calling people today and is willing to recognize His work wherever it appears.

Such discernment rarely takes place through a single meeting, a nomination committee, or a carefully designed evaluation form.

More often, it unfolds gradually through years of shared life together.

Pastors, deacons, small-group leaders, and ordinary believers serve alongside one another. They pray together, experience disappointments together, endure conflict together, and persevere together through the ordinary rhythms of ministry. Along the way, they begin to notice something that no assessment tool can adequately measure.

Perhaps someone is not the most gifted communicator.

Perhaps they are not naturally charismatic.

Perhaps they do not resemble the kind of leader everyone initially expected.

Yet over time, the community begins to see unmistakable signs of God’s work.

They remain faithful in ordinary responsibilities.

They continue learning through failure.

They display humility when disagreements arise.

Little by little, the character of Christ becomes increasingly evident in the way they live and serve.

Gradually the congregation begins to recognize what God has already been doing.

“Perhaps the Lord is calling this person.”

From this perspective, discernment is not primarily about choosing someone to become a leader.

It is about learning, together, to recognize the person in whom God has already begun His work.

---

Formation: What Is the Church Actually Nurturing?

Yet discernment is only the beginning.

Once the church recognizes God’s work in someone’s life, another question naturally follows:

What, then, should actually be formed?

When churches speak about leadership development today, the conversation often begins with competence.

We organize courses, workshops, internships, and mentoring programs to help people learn how to teach the Scriptures, lead small groups, chair meetings, manage teams, and oversee ministries. These skills are indispensable, and healthy churches cannot flourish without them.

Yet competence is not the same as maturity.

The longer I serve in pastoral ministry, the more convinced I become that mature Christian leadership grows along three inseparable dimensions: gift, character, and calling.

Gift is the ability God graciously gives.

Character is the Christlike life that the Holy Spirit patiently shapes.

Calling is the deep conviction that enables a person to understand why they serve in the first place.

Gift equips a leader to carry responsibility.

Character enables a leader to bear authority without being corrupted by it.

Calling gives a leader the perseverance to remain faithful when ministry becomes costly.

Truly mature leaders are not those who have perfected all three dimensions, but those who are willing to let all three continue growing together within the life of the church.

Gift, Character, and Calling Do Not Always Mature Together

Unfortunately, these three dimensions do not always develop at the same pace.

Some believers possess remarkable gifts and impressive abilities, yet remain difficult to teach or unwilling to walk closely with others. Others demonstrate deep faithfulness, humility, and love, yet still lack the experience or confidence to assume greater responsibility. Still others may exhibit both gifting and mature character, but have not yet clearly discerned God’s particular calling upon their lives.

If a church evaluates people primarily by giftedness, the most capable individuals will quickly be elevated into leadership, even when their character has not yet matured sufficiently to sustain it.

If a church values character alone, those whom God has uniquely gifted may never be entrusted with meaningful responsibility.

And when calling is neglected altogether, ministry gradually becomes little more than a role to perform rather than a vocation to embrace.

Healthy leadership formation, therefore, is never about maximizing one of these dimensions while neglecting the others. Rather, it patiently accompanies believers as their gifts, character, and calling mature together under the lordship of Christ.

---

Paul’s Formation of Timothy

Paul’s relationship with Timothy beautifully illustrates this pattern.

When Paul reflected upon Timothy’s years of ministry, he did not begin by highlighting Timothy’s effectiveness or accomplishments. Instead, he pointed to Timothy’s life—his teaching, conduct, purpose, faith, patience, love, perseverance, and steadfastness (2 Tim. 3:10–14).²

What mattered most to Paul was not how competent Timothy had become, but whether his life was increasingly being conformed to Christ.

Significantly, Paul never said, “You have successfully completed my leadership training.”

Instead, he reminded Timothy:

“You, however, know those from whom you learned.”

Timothy became the leader he was not because he had mastered a theological curriculum, but because over many years he had watched Paul follow Christ and gradually learned to walk the same path himself.

Leadership, in other words, was not merely taught.

It was embodied.

---

A Pattern Seen Throughout Baptist History

This same principle can be seen throughout the history of the Baptist movement.

Robert E. Coleman famously observed that Jesus did not transform the world by constructing an efficient system for producing disciples. Rather, He invested His life patiently in a small group of ordinary people, allowing His own life to shape theirs over time.³

Baptist history tells a remarkably similar story.

Thomas Helwys, Roger Williams, William Carey, and Lottie Moon were not used by God because they perfectly matched predetermined leadership profiles. Rather, in each generation, the believing community gradually recognized God’s calling upon their lives.⁴

Carey began life as a village cobbler.

Lottie Moon served as a missionary during a period when many churches found it difficult even to imagine a woman exercising such influential ministry.

Neither fit the expectations of their day.

Yet God used them to reshape Baptist history and profoundly influence the modern missionary movement.

Their stories remind us that those whom God raises up rarely resemble the people we initially expect.

---

Learning to Discern the Next Generation

This is particularly significant for Canadian Chinese Baptist churches today.

Many second-generation believers have grown up between two cultures. Their language, patterns of worship, ministry expectations, leadership styles, and assumptions about church life often differ considerably from those of the immigrant generation.

Where the first generation frequently emphasizes faithfulness, responsibility, and sacrificial commitment, the second generation often places greater value on authenticity, relationships, and meaningful participation.

This does not mean that one generation is more spiritual than the other.

Rather, spiritual maturity often finds expression through different cultural forms.

Perhaps, then, one of the greatest responsibilities of the first generation is not merely to train younger leaders, but to learn how to discern them afresh.

The question is no longer,

“Does this person resemble us?”

It becomes,

“Is God already at work in this person’s life?”

True discernment does not seek replicas of ourselves.

It seeks evidence of God’s new work among His people.

---

Becoming a Community That Raises People Up

Throughout my own ministry, I have been privileged to observe churches where a long-term culture of discipleship has gradually raised up generation after generation of small-group leaders, missionaries, pastors, and church planters.

What distinguished these churches was not necessarily the sophistication of their leadership curriculum or the efficiency of their organizational systems.

Their defining characteristic was something far more fundamental.

As a community, they genuinely believed that God still raises up workers from among ordinary believers.

Whenever they recognized gifts, Christlike character, and genuine calling emerging in someone’s life, they willingly offered trust, encouragement, opportunity, patient mentoring, and time for growth.

By contrast, I have also encountered churches with impressive structures, comprehensive policies, and carefully designed leadership systems, yet where fewer and fewer people were entrusted with meaningful responsibility because the community had gradually become afraid of making mistakes.

Eventually, such churches possess numerous positions but few emerging leaders.

They have abundant ministry needs but little sense of calling.

They have many workers but comparatively few servants whose lives are steadily being conformed to Christ.

Perhaps one of the greatest challenges facing many Canadian Chinese Baptist churches today is not the absence of programs or leadership structures.

Perhaps we have gradually ceased to be communities that genuinely raise people up.

A church that raises leaders is not necessarily the church with the most comprehensive leadership curriculum.

It is the church that faithfully learns to discern, accompany, empower, and ultimately send those in whom God has already begun His work.

---

The fundamental question concerning the next generation has never really been,

“Who will take the baton?”

The deeper question is this:

Do we still believe that God is raising up workers within His church today?

And when He does, will we be willing to recognize them, walk alongside them, equip them, and joyfully send them into the work to which He has called them?

Pastor Antony

---

Notes

1. Edgar Young Mullins, The Axioms of Religion (Philadelphia: Judson Press, 1908), 53–74. Mullins argued that because God relates directly to every believer, the church’s responsibility is not merely to appoint leaders, but to discern together those in whom God is already at work.
2. Second Epistle to Timothy 3:10–14.
3. Robert E. Coleman, The Master Plan of Evangelism (Grand Rapids: Revell, 1993), 21–43.
4. Thomas Helwys, Roger Williams, William Carey, and Lottie Moon together illustrate a consistent pattern throughout Baptist history: God frequently raises up people whom others might easily overlook, while the church’s calling is to discern them, accompany them, equip them, and joyfully send them into His mission.

《誰來接下一棒？》（五）參與，不等於交託

如果第四篇所提出的觀察成立，那麼另一個問題自然會出現。

如果領袖真的是在群體裡慢慢成長出來，那麼當這些人逐漸成熟，教會的承接問題是否便會自然得到解決？

坦白說，這些年來，當我與不同教會的牧者和領袖交流時，我曾經以為答案是肯定的。畢竟，只要有人願意參與，有人願意承擔，也有人願意慢慢成長，交棒似乎只是時間的問題。然而後來我慢慢發現，事情似乎沒有想像中那麼簡單。因為許多教會其實並不缺乏願意服事的人。很多年輕人願意帶敬拜，願意教主日學，願意參加短宣，也願意投入不同的事工；許多中生代信徒也樂意付上時間和代價，願意陪伴下一代，甚至願意承擔不同責任。從外面來看，這些群體似乎並不缺乏下一代，也不是真的完全沒有人可以承接。

然而，許多教會仍然感到焦慮。慢慢地，我開始明白，也許問題並不只是有沒有人，而是另一件更深的事情。因為參與和交託，其實是兩件不完全相同的事情。

回頭看自己的成長經歷，我發現很多前輩都願意給我參與的機會。他們讓我一起短宣，一起籌備營會，一起參與文字事工，一起學習帶領小組，也讓我在不同的服事裡慢慢成長。多年後回頭看，我很感恩，因為正是這些參與，一點一滴塑造了今天的自己。然而，隨著年日過去，我也慢慢發現，讓一個人參與，很多時候是邀請他一起做事；但真正的交託，卻意味著願意與他一起承擔結果。兩者看似相近，實際上卻有著相當大的距離。因為參與，很多時候仍然是在自己熟悉的框架之下進行；然而交託，卻意味著我們需要接受，事情未必完全按照自己熟悉的方法發展，也意味著我們需要相信，即使別人的做法與自己不同，神仍然可以透過他們繼續工作。

因此，真正的交託，從來不只是工作的分配，而是一種內心深處的放手。這種放手，並不是放棄責任，也不是從此不再關心，而是願意把一部分原本由自己掌握的東西，慢慢交給別人，並且接受他們可能有不同的想法、不同的節奏，甚至不同的方式。說到底，這並不是能力的問題，而是一種信任的問題。而當我們開始意識到，問題真正關乎信任時，其實也開始明白，為甚麼交託從來不是一件容易的事情。因為放手，很多時候意味著放下自己最熟悉、最有把握的東西；意味著接受事情未必完全按照自己的期待發展；更意味著承認，群體的未來並不完全掌握在自己手中。某程度上，這也是一種信心的操練。因為真正的交託，最終所考驗的，也許不是下一代是否已經足夠成熟，而是我們是否願意相信，即使事情不再完全按照自己的方式進行，神仍然會繼續帶領祂的教會。

而這也讓我想起聖經裡一幅很有意思的圖畫。上一代走過紅海，新一代走過約旦河。同樣是神的帶領，同樣是信心的功課，但兩代人所面對的處境卻並不一樣。紅海一代經歷的是離開、建立與存活；約旦河一代面對的，卻是進入、承接與開展。兩代人所承擔的使命不同，學習信靠神的方式也不完全相同。有趣的是，神並沒有要求約旦河一代重走紅海的經驗，也沒有要求他們完全按照上一代的方法前進。同樣的一位神，卻帶領不同世代，在不同的處境裡，學習屬於他們的信心。

或許，真正的傳承也是如此。它從來不是要求下一代完全複製上一代，而是讓不同世代在同一位主的帶領下，用不同的方式回應同一個使命。正因如此，交託才會變得困難。因為交託並不是把一份已經完成的答案交給別人，而是願意相信，即使下一代走出來的路與自己不同，神仍然可以繼續工作。

保羅與提摩太之間，或許正是一個很好的例子。提摩太並不是一個完美的人。他年輕，也容易膽怯，甚至需要保羅不斷鼓勵他「不要叫人小看你年輕」。若按今天許多人的標準，他也許仍然不夠成熟，不夠穩定，還需要更多時間預備。然而，保羅卻沒有等到提摩太完全成熟才開始交託。因為保羅似乎知道，沒有人會在完全準備好之後才開始承擔。很多時候，人正是在承擔之中慢慢成熟；而真正的交棒，也不是等到一切都毫無風險才開始。

直到今天，我愈來愈覺得，真正困難的，從來不是找不到接棒的人。真正困難的，是當有人慢慢出來的時候，我們是否願意相信，神可以透過他們，繼續帶領群體向前。因為很多時候，參與並不等於交託，而真正的傳承，也不只是讓下一代一起做事。到最後，我們所交出去的，不只是責任，也不只是位置，而是信任。我們相信，即使有一天，事情不再完全按照自己熟悉的方式發展，那位一直帶領我們走過紅海的主，也同樣會帶領下一代走過屬於他們的約旦河。

Antony傳道

下一篇預告

然而，當我繼續思想這個問題時，我也開始發現，交託之所以如此困難，很多時候並不只是因為能力，也不一定是因為權力。在更深的地方，它往往與人的安全感、身份，以及對未知的焦慮有關。

下一篇，我想進一步思考：《為甚麼交棒這麼困難？》 

《從浸信會傳統、歷史與神學重新思想教會（實踐篇）》（11） 共同辨識最大的挑戰 ——當我們對共同辨識也有不同理解

如果說，第八篇所談的是重要的事情需要慢下來，第九篇所談的是領導不只是作決定，而是塑造群體，第十篇所談的是制度更新往往需要從文化開始，那麼到了這裡，我們或許需要面對一個更深層、也更貼近今天許多教會現況的問題：當我們都說要一起尋求神時，我們究竟是在談同一件事情嗎？

浸信會向來重視地方教會自治，也重視群體一起尋求神的帶領。我們相信基督是教會唯一的元首，也相信聖靈不只向個別領袖說話，而是向整個群體說話。因此，浸信會從早期開始，便十分強調會眾參與、共同責任以及群體辨識的重要性。然而，當我們真正進入教會生活時，卻很快會發現一個現實：即使大家都相信神仍然帶領教會，即使大家都認同共同辨識的重要性，彼此之間仍然可能出現很大的分歧。而這些分歧，很多時候並不只是來自大家對某個議題有不同看法，而是來自大家對「神究竟如何帶領教會」本身已有不同理解。

很多時候，我們談論教會衝突，很容易把問題理解成真理與異端、愛主與不愛主、屬靈與不屬靈之間的對立。然而，現實往往比這複雜得多。許多最令人痛苦的張力，不是來自一群不愛主的人，而是來自一群都愛主、都願意委身，也都真心希望教會好的弟兄姊妹。有人重視真理，有人重視關係；有人關心宣教，有人關心牧養；有人看見下一代的重要性，也有人看見現有會眾的需要。很多時候，雙方都不是出於惡意，也不一定有誰對誰錯，而是因為每個人所看見的重點不同、所背負的負擔不同、所經歷的人生也不同。

例如，一個執事會在討論資源分配時，有人認為應該優先投放在兒童和青少年事工，因為他們關心教會二十年後的未來；也有人認為應該先照顧長者和現有會眾，因為他們看見許多真實而迫切的需要。雙方都愛教會，也都願意忠心事奉，但彼此卻可能慢慢產生誤解，甚至開始懷疑對方是否真正關心教會。

然而，隨著我愈來愈多接觸不同教會，我開始發現，許多時候教會最大的張力並不在於議題本身，而在於大家對共同辨識有不同理解。

對有些人來說，共同辨識主要體現在程序與制度之中。只要資訊公開透明，每個人都有發言機會，經過充分討論，最後透過投票形成決定，這本身便是群體共同尋求的過程。從這個角度來看，會友大會、委員會制度以及地方教會自治，本身就是浸信會共同辨識的重要表現。程序保障參與，投票反映群體意願，而這些正正是浸信會傳統十分珍惜的價值。

然而，對另一些人來說，共同辨識不只是程序，更是一種屬靈操練。投票可以存在，但投票並不是核心。真正重要的，是群體是否一起查考聖經、一起禱告、一起聆聽聖靈的帶領，並且在這個過程中慢慢形成共識。對他們而言，程序是工具，而不是目的；投票可以確認決定，卻不能取代辨識本身。

因此，很多時候教會裡的張力，並不是因為一方相信共同辨識，而另一方不相信。恰恰相反，雙方都相信共同辨識，只是對共同辨識有不同理解。有人認為討論已經足夠，應該進入投票；另一邊卻可能認為群體仍未真正一起尋求神。有人認為程序已經完成；另一邊卻覺得屬靈辨識尚未開始。表面上是在討論某項提案，實際上卻是在實踐兩種不同的教會觀。

而當這些不同理解遇上焦慮時，情況往往變得更加複雜。

艾德溫．傅利民（Edwin H. Friedman）在研究群體焦慮與領導時指出，焦慮中的群體往往傾向尋找快速而安全的答案，而不是學習在不確定之中保持穩定。¹ 當群體愈來愈擔心犯錯時，人們自然會傾向選擇最穩妥的做法。於是，多做多錯，少做少錯；不做，似乎便最不會出錯。慢慢地，教會開始把「避免犯錯」視為最高價值，而不是把忠心跟隨基督視為最高價值。

這種文化最危險的地方，在於它往往披著「謹慎」的外衣。教會仍然有會議，仍然有委員會，仍然有投票和討論，但共同辨識卻可能慢慢退化成一種集體風險管理機制。人們關心的焦點，不再是神是否正在帶領我們進入新的方向，而是如何避免出錯；不再是如何忠心回應神的呼召，而是如何降低風險。

久而久之，新的事工愈來愈難開始，新的構想愈來愈難被接納，新的領袖愈來愈難被信任。教會愈來愈習慣維持現況，而不是探索新的可能。甚至講道也可能愈來愈傾向傳講那些不容易引起爭議的信息，而較少願意進入人的內心深處，面對生命的掙扎、傷痕與轉化。人們仍然談論真理，也仍然談論事奉，但整個群體卻可能慢慢失去期待神做新事的能力。

然而，這其實並不是浸信會歷史所追求的方向。

回顧浸信會四百多年的歷史，我們所看見的，從來不是一群只求安全的人。約翰．史密斯（John Smyth，約1570–1612）強調教會應在神話語面前共同尋求真理，而不是單單依靠既有權威。托馬斯．赫爾維斯（Thomas Helwys，約1575–1616）因主張宗教自由而被囚禁至死；羅傑．威廉斯（Roger Williams，1603–1683）為了實踐良心自由與政教分離的信念，被迫離開原有殖民地；而被稱為「近代宣教之父」的威廉．克理（William Carey，1761–1834），則在許多人認為海外宣教不切實際的年代，毅然推動近代宣教運動。²³⁴⁵

他們共同的地方，不是因為擁有十足把握才前進，而是因為相信基督仍然是教會真正的主，聖靈仍然在祂的百姓當中工作。

事實上，聖經從來沒有應許，一個願意尋求神的群體就永遠不會犯錯。共同辨識的目的，也不是保證每一個決定都正確。它真正的目的，是幫助群體在有限之中，一起學習跟隨神。因此，共同辨識從來不是為了讓教會不犯錯，而是讓教會能夠一起承擔、一起學習，也一起回應神新的帶領。

這也是為什麼，共同辨識最終並不是建立在投票之上，也不是建立在章程之上，而是建立在信任之上。當群體願意彼此接納、彼此聆聽、彼此尊重不同恩賜，也願意讓資訊保持透明，不讓少數人壟斷討論空間時，人們才有可能慢慢建立信任。而當信任逐漸形成，人們才願意放下防衛，不再只保護自己的事工、自己的部門和自己的立場，而開始一起尋求神對整個教會的帶領。

因此，包容、接納、信任、透明，以及不一言堂的態度，其實並不是共同辨識之後才需要的結果；它們本身就是共同辨識得以發生的土壤。同樣地，認識彼此恩賜的不同，也十分重要。因為共同辨識並不意味著每個人都擁有相同的看見，而是相信神能夠透過不同恩賜、不同背景、不同經歷的人，共同幫助群體看見更完整的圖畫。

或許，共同辨識最困難的地方也正在這裡。我們大多願意相信神會透過自己說話，也願意相信神會透過自己認同的人說話。但共同辨識真正的挑戰是：我們是否願意相信，神也可能透過那個與我意見不同的人向我說話？

如果答案是肯定的，那麼我們便不能急著離開桌子，也不能急著把對方標籤化。我們需要繼續聆聽，繼續尋求，也繼續相信神仍然在群體之中工作。

《使徒行傳》第十五章之所以如此動人，不是因為一開始就沒有分歧，而是因為在「很大的辯論」之後（徒十五7），他們仍然願意一起留在群體之中，一起聆聽，一起尋求神。最後，他們才能見證說：

「聖靈和我們定意。」（徒十五28）⁶

這句話之所以美麗，不只是因為他們達成共識，而是因為他們仍然相信，在眾多不同聲音之中，神仍然能夠帶領祂的教會。

或許，一間成熟的教會，不是從來沒有不同聲音的教會，也不是從來不會犯錯的教會，而是一間即使面對差異、張力、風險與不確定，仍然願意一起留在桌子旁、一起留在基督裡，並且相信神仍然帶領祂教會的群體。

Antony傳道

---

註腳

1. 艾德溫．傅利民（Edwin H. Friedman）, A Failure of Nerve: Leadership in the Age of the Quick Fix (New York: Church Publishing, 2007), 19–44。
2. 約翰．史密斯（John Smyth, 約1570–1612）被普遍視為浸信會運動的重要先驅之一。他原為英國分離派牧師，後來逐漸發展出信徒受浸與地方教會自治等思想，強調信徒群體應直接在神話語面前共同尋求真理，而非單純依賴既有教會權威。
3. 托馬斯．赫爾維斯（Thomas Helwys, 約1575–1616）為早期英國浸信會領袖，被普遍視為第一位將浸信會運動帶回英格蘭的人。他公開主張宗教自由與良心自由，認為君王無權統治人的良心，最終被囚禁於 Newgate Prison 並死於獄中。
4. 羅傑．威廉斯（Roger Williams, 1603–1683）為北美殖民地時期重要牧者及思想家，被視為宗教自由與政教分離的重要倡導者。他因反對政府干預宗教事務而被放逐，其後創立羅德島（Rhode Island），成為當時少數保障宗教自由的地方。
5. 威廉．克理（William Carey, 1761–1834）為英國浸信會牧者及宣教士，被稱為「近代宣教之父」。他推動成立浸信會差會，並前往印度宣教超過四十年，對近代基督教宣教運動影響深遠。
6. 《使徒行傳》15:1–29。

---

Rethinking the Church through Baptist Tradition, History, and Theology (Practical Reflections)
Part 11 — The Greatest Challenge of Communal Discernment

When We Mean Different Things by “Seeking God Together”

If Part 8 argued that important matters require us to slow down, Part 9 explored how leadership is not merely about making decisions but about shaping a community, and Part 10 suggested that lasting renewal usually begins with culture rather than structure, then we now arrive at an even deeper challenge—one that lies beneath many of the tensions experienced in churches today. When we say that we want to seek God’s will together, are we actually talking about the same thing?

Baptists have long cherished the principles of local church autonomy and congregational participation. We affirm that Christ alone is the Head of the Church, and we believe that the Holy Spirit does not speak only through individual leaders but through the gathered people of God. For this reason, Baptist churches have historically emphasized shared responsibility, congregational involvement, and the importance of communal discernment. Yet once we move from theological conviction into the realities of church life, an uncomfortable truth quickly emerges. Even when everyone sincerely believes that God continues to guide His church, and even when everyone agrees that seeking God together is important, significant disagreements can still arise. More often than not, these disagreements do not stem simply from differing opinions on a particular issue. They arise because people often hold different assumptions about how God guides His church in the first place.

When church conflicts occur, we instinctively frame them in simple categories: truth versus error, faithfulness versus compromise, spiritual people versus unspiritual people. The reality of congregational life, however, is often far more complex. Some of the most painful tensions arise not because people lack commitment to Christ, but because committed believers see different aspects of the church’s calling with equal sincerity. One person may be deeply burdened for biblical faithfulness, while another feels strongly about pastoral care and relationships. Some are passionate about evangelism and mission; others are concerned about discipleship, family ministry, or the spiritual formation of the next generation. In many cases, neither side is acting out of selfish motives, and neither side is necessarily wrong. They simply see different parts of the same picture.

Consider, for example, a deacons’ board discussing how limited resources should be allocated. Some may argue that greater investment should be directed toward children and youth ministries because they are thinking about the church twenty years from now. Others may believe that resources should first be devoted to seniors and existing members because they see immediate and pressing needs within the congregation. Both groups may love the church deeply. Both may desire to serve faithfully. Yet over time, misunderstandings can develop, and people may begin to question whether those on the other side truly care about the church at all.

The more churches I encounter, the more convinced I become that many of our deepest tensions do not arise from the issues themselves. They arise because we understand communal discernment differently.

For some, communal discernment is primarily expressed through process and procedure. If information is shared openly, everyone has an opportunity to speak, discussion is allowed, and decisions are eventually reached through voting, then the congregation has fulfilled its responsibility to seek God’s guidance together. From this perspective, congregational meetings, committee structures, and local church governance are themselves important expressions of Baptist convictions. Procedures safeguard participation, and voting reflects the will of the congregation.

For others, however, communal discernment is more than a process; it is a spiritual discipline. Voting may have a place, but voting is not the heart of discernment. What matters most is whether the congregation has searched the Scriptures together, prayed together, listened carefully to one another, and sought the leading of the Holy Spirit. Procedures may support discernment, but they cannot replace it. Voting may ratify a decision, but it cannot substitute for the deeper work of seeking God together. To them, process is a tool rather than a destination.

As a result, tensions often arise not because one side believes in communal discernment and the other does not. On the contrary, both sides may value communal discernment deeply. The difference lies in how they understand it. One group may feel that sufficient discussion has already taken place and that it is time to move forward. Another group may feel that genuine discernment has barely begun. One side believes that the process has been completed; the other believes that the spiritual work remains unfinished. On the surface they appear to be debating a proposal. Beneath the surface they are operating from two different understandings of how God’s guidance is discerned within the life of the church.

The situation becomes even more complicated when anxiety enters the picture. Edwin Friedman observed that anxious systems naturally seek quick and safe answers rather than learning how to remain steady amid uncertainty.¹ As fear increases, people become increasingly concerned about avoiding mistakes. Gradually, avoiding failure becomes more important than pursuing faithfulness. Doing less appears safer; doing nothing appears safest of all. Over time, a church may begin to measure success not by its willingness to follow Christ, but by its ability to avoid risk.

This is what makes anxiety so deceptive. It often disguises itself as prudence. Meetings continue. Committees continue. Discussions continue. Votes continue. Yet communal discernment slowly deteriorates into collective risk management. The central question is no longer, “Where might God be leading us?” but “How can we avoid making a mistake?” As this mindset takes hold, new ministries become harder to begin, new ideas become harder to consider, and new leaders become harder to trust. Churches become increasingly skilled at preserving what already exists while gradually losing their expectation that God may still do something new among His people.

Yet this is not the trajectory we see throughout Baptist history. The Baptist tradition was not built by people whose highest priority was safety. Figures such as John Smyth, Thomas Helwys, Roger Williams, and William Carey moved forward not because they possessed certainty, but because they believed Christ remained Lord of the Church and that the Holy Spirit continued to work among God’s people.²³⁴⁵

Scripture never promises that a church sincerely seeking God will never make mistakes. The purpose of communal discernment is not to guarantee perfect decisions. Rather, it helps God’s people learn together how to follow Christ faithfully despite their limitations. For that reason, communal discernment ultimately rests not upon voting, constitutions, or procedures, but upon trust. When information is shared openly, when different gifts are respected, when disagreement does not threaten belonging, and when no individual controls the conversation, trust begins to grow. Only then do people gradually lower their defenses and become willing to seek God’s direction for the whole church rather than merely protecting their own ministries, preferences, or positions.

This is why qualities such as openness, transparency, mutual respect, trust, and a willingness to avoid one-person rule are not merely the outcomes of communal discernment; they are the conditions that make communal discernment possible. Likewise, recognizing the diversity of gifts within the body of Christ is essential. Discernment does not require everyone to see the same thing. Rather, it requires a shared belief that God may reveal different parts of His will through different people.

Perhaps this is where communal discernment becomes most difficult. Most of us are willing to believe that God speaks through us. We are often willing to believe that God speaks through people who already agree with us. The deeper challenge is whether we are willing to believe that God may also speak through someone with whom we disagree.

If the answer is yes, then we cannot rush away from the table. We cannot reduce one another to labels. We must continue listening, continue seeking, and continue trusting that God remains at work among His people. Acts 15 is powerful not because disagreement was absent. Luke explicitly tells us there was “much debate” before unity emerged (Acts 15:7). Yet the believers remained together. They continued listening. They continued seeking God. Only then were they able to say, “It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us” (Acts 15:28).⁶

The beauty of that statement lies not merely in the outcome but in the journey that preceded it. A mature church is not a church without differing voices, nor is it a church that never makes mistakes. A mature church is one that remains at the table, remains in Christ, and continues trusting that God is still capable of leading His people—even through voices they least expected to hear.

Pastor Antony

---

Notes

1. Edwin H. Friedman, A Failure of Nerve: Leadership in the Age of the Quick Fix (New York: Church Publishing, 2007), 19–44.
2. John Smyth (c. 1570–1612).
3. Thomas Helwys (c. 1575–1616).
4. Roger Williams (1603–1683).
5. William Carey (1761–1834).
6. Acts 15:1–29.

《在起初的故事裡：重新學習作神的子民》- 《創世記》系列：第二十四篇：〈當亞伯拉罕離世，神的應許仍然向前〉

經文：創世記 25:1–18（新漢語譯本）
一、讀到亞伯拉罕離世時，我們很容易問：他究竟看見了多少應許？

從創世記第十二章開始，亞伯拉罕一直是整個故事的中心人物。

神呼召他離開本地、本族和父家，應許要使他成為大國，使他的後裔如天上的星，又要把迦南地賜給他和他的後裔。此後十多章經文一路記錄他如何等待、跌倒、掙扎、重新相信，也記錄神如何一次又一次重申祂的應許。

然而，當我們來到第二十五章時，卻會發現一件頗為耐人尋味的事情。

亞伯拉罕離世之前，許多應許其實仍未完全實現。他確實有了兒子，但距離成為大國仍然十分遙遠；他確實住在迦南地，卻沒有真正擁有整片土地；神曾應許他的後裔要如天上的星那樣眾多，但此刻一切仍只是開始。

換句話說，亞伯拉罕是在應許已經展開、卻尚未完全成就的時候離開世界。

若從人的角度來看，這樣的結局多少帶著一點不完整。畢竟，這位因信離開吾珥、在帳棚中度過大半生、等待應許之子出生的老人，最終並沒有親眼看見所有事情的完成。然而，《創世記》的作者似乎並不急著解決這種張力。相反，他讓這種「尚未完成」的感覺停留在故事之中，也讓讀者明白，神的應許並不一定會在一個人的一生之中全部實現。¹

二、亞伯拉罕離世之前，作者先讓我們看見應許正在向外展開

第二十五章開首記錄亞伯拉罕後來又娶了一位妻子基土拉，並且生下許多兒子。

對不少讀者而言，這段家譜似乎有些突兀。前面幾章的焦點一直集中在以撒身上，如今作者忽然列出一連串陌生名字，很容易令人以為這只是補充資料。然而，若回到創世記整體脈絡來看，便會發現作者其實正在回應神多年以前向亞伯拉罕所說的一句話：

「你要成為多國的父。」（參創17:4）

因此，這些名字並不只是家譜資料，而是讓讀者看見神的話已經開始逐漸展開。亞伯拉罕不單有以撒，也有許多後裔從他而出；神所說的「多國」，如今已經開始成形。

然而，經文同時又特別補上一句：

「亞伯拉罕把他擁有的一切都給了以撒。」（創25:5）

這句話十分重要。因為作者一方面承認其他兒子同樣是亞伯拉罕的後裔，另一方面卻再次提醒讀者，承載應許的那條線仍然落在以撒身上。神的祝福可以廣泛地臨到許多人，但神推進祂救贖計劃的方式，卻有其特定的方向。

因此，亞伯拉罕在仍然活著的時候，便把其他兒子送往東方之地，使這條承載應許的故事線得以清晰地延續下去。²

三、最耐人尋味的畫面，不是亞伯拉罕離世，而是兩個兒子再次站在一起

經文記載：「他的兒子以撒和以實瑪利把他埋葬在麥比拉洞。」（創25:9）

若只是快速閱讀，我們很容易把這句話當成單純的葬禮記錄。然而，對熟悉前面故事的讀者而言，這其實是一幅十分安靜、卻又耐人尋味的畫面。

自從第二十一章夏甲和以實瑪利離開之後，《創世記》便再沒有讓這兩兄弟同時出現在敘事中心。當年，撒拉要求把夏甲和以實瑪利趕走；亞伯拉罕因此十分憂愁，神則親自介入，應許要眷顧那被送往曠野的孩子。從那時開始，以撒與以實瑪利的人生似乎朝著不同方向發展，而《創世記》的鏡頭也主要跟隨著以撒的家族線前進。

然而，到了亞伯拉罕離世的時刻，作者卻再次把兩個兒子的名字放在一起。

經文沒有描述他們之間是否已經完全和好，也沒有記錄他們曾說過甚麼話，只是平靜地告訴讀者，他們一起把父親埋葬在麥比拉洞裡。或許正因如此，這幅畫面反而顯得特別耐人尋味。作者沒有試圖替這個家庭作出總結，也沒有解釋過去的張力是否已經消失，而是把一切留在沉默之中，讓讀者自己去思想。³

四、亞伯拉罕一生真正擁有的，仍然只有那塊墳地

經文特別提到，亞伯拉罕被埋葬在麥比拉洞，就是他昔日為撒拉買下的那塊田地。

這個細節並非偶然。因為神曾經應許把整片迦南地賜給他，但到了生命結束的時候，亞伯拉罕真正擁有的土地，卻只有這一小塊作為墳墓的地方。

若從人的角度來看，這多少帶著一點諷刺。神應許的是一片土地，而亞伯拉罕最後擁有的，卻只是一個洞穴。然而，《創世記》並沒有把這件事描寫成失敗。作者甚至刻意再次提及這塊田地，以及它如何從赫人手中轉讓給亞伯拉罕，似乎要讓讀者記得，故事雖然尚未完成，但應許並沒有因此停止。⁴

後來不少猶太與基督教傳統都傾向把這一幕理解為一種信心的見證：亞伯拉罕雖然沒有完全看見神所應許的一切，卻在盼望之中結束自己的一生。然而，即使不急於下這樣的結論，單單停留在經文本身，我們仍然會感受到一種深刻的張力——一位跟隨神一生的人，最後所擁有的，似乎遠少於神曾經應許給他的。

而故事，也正是在這種尚未完成的張力之中繼續向前。

五、以實瑪利的世系提醒我們：神沒有忘記祂曾說過的話

接下來，作者用了不短的篇幅記錄以實瑪利的後代。

許多人讀經時往往會直接跳過這段名單，但這份世系其實十分重要。因為早在夏甲逃到曠野的時候，神已經對她說過，要使以實瑪利成為大國；後來夏甲與兒子被趕離家門時，神也再次重申這個應許。

如今，以實瑪利有十二個兒子，又形成十二個首領與支派。作者藉著這份名單提醒讀者，神並沒有忘記祂曾經說過的話，也沒有忘記那個曾經在曠野裡哭泣的母親和孩子。⁵

值得留意的是，《創世記》並沒有把以實瑪利描寫成失敗者。雖然他不是承接應許的那條線，但神對他的應許同樣成就了。這也提醒讀者，神的揀選有其中心，但祂的恩典卻不一定只停留在中心之內。

六、故事結束時，作者只用一句話開啟新的時代

第二十五章最後記載：「亞伯拉罕死後，神祝福他的兒子以撒。」（創25:11）

這句話看似平淡，卻是整段經文最重要的轉折。

從第十二章開始，讀者一直跟隨亞伯拉罕前行。如今，這位離開吾珥、走進迦南、等待應許之子出生、在摩利亞山上學習信靠神的老人，終於完成了他的旅程。

然而，故事並沒有因為他的離世而停止。

昔日與亞伯拉罕同行的神，如今開始與以撒同行；昔日臨到亞伯拉罕的祝福，如今開始延續到下一代。因此，第二十五章真正讓讀者看見的，或許不是一位信心之父如何離開世界，而是神如何繼續工作。因為真正推動歷史向前的，從來不是亞伯拉罕，而是那位始終信實守約的上主。⁶

結語

創世記第二十五章，表面上記錄了一位老人離世，也記錄了幾份看似平凡的家譜。

然而，在這些名字與世系背後，作者其實正在描繪一件更深的事情。

亞伯拉罕的一生結束了。他沒有完全看見神所應許的一切，也沒有親眼見證所有事情最終如何成就。然而，故事並沒有因此停止。

或許，《創世記》一直提醒讀者的，不是如何在有限的人生裡看見所有答案，而是學習相信：即使我們的一生終將結束，神的故事仍然會繼續向前，而那些尚未完成的部分，也仍然在祂的手中。

Antony 傳道

---

註腳

¹ Gordon J. Wenham, Genesis 16–50 (WBC 2; Dallas: Word Books, 1994), 174–177。

² Victor P. Hamilton, The Book of Genesis: Chapters 18–50 (NICOT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995), 171–173。

³ Gerhard von Rad, Genesis: A Commentary, rev. ed. (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1972), 267–268。

⁴ Bruce K. Waltke, Genesis: A Commentary (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2001), 344–346。

⁵ Gordon J. Wenham, Genesis 16–50 (WBC 2; Dallas: Word Books, 1994), 178–180。

⁶ John H. Sailhamer, The Pentateuch as Narrative: A Biblical-Theological Commentary (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1992), 194–196。

《從浸信會傳統、歷史與神學重新思想教會（實踐篇）》（10）當制度已經存在，我們又如何開始改變？—委員會文化的更新，不一定從革命開始

如果說，第八篇所談的是，重要的事情需要慢下來；第九篇所談的是，領導不只是作決定，而是塑造群體；那麼，一個十分現實的問題便自然浮現：當一間教會已經有自己的章程、委員會和既定文化時，我們究竟應該如何開始改變？

畢竟，大部分教會都不是白紙一張。許多教會已經走過數十年的歷史，也累積了自己的制度、習慣和運作方式。因此，當人們談論更新時，很容易首先想到修改章程、重組架構、增減委員會，或者重新分配權責。然而，回顧教會歷史，我愈來愈覺得，真正困難的地方，往往不在於制度，而在於文化。

制度固然重要，但制度本身並不能自動產生共同辨識。即使擁有完善的委員會、透明的程序、公平的投票和清晰的架構，也不代表群體自然懂得一起尋求神。相反，若文化沒有改變，再好的制度，也可能逐漸變成例行公事。人仍然只是等待少數人提供答案，委員會仍然只是交換意見，投票仍然只是決定誰的聲音比較大，而不是整個群體一起學習聆聽神。

事實上，十九世紀以後，許多北美教會受到工業化和現代組織管理的影響，逐漸發展出各種委員會制度和功能分工。正如 H. Richard Niebuhr 所觀察，現代社會的組織思維深深影響了教會，使教會愈來愈傾向以效率和功能來理解自己。¹ 這些制度本身並沒有問題，也曾經為教會帶來不少幫助。然而，當制度慢慢取代了群體生活，會議便可能愈來愈有效率，卻不一定愈來愈懂得共同尋求神。

同樣地，Edwin Friedman 也提醒我們，焦慮中的群體很容易尋找快速的解決方法，並且誤以為只要調整結構，問題便會自然消失。² 因此，每當教會遇見困難時，我們首先想到的，往往是重新分工、修改章程、增加或減少委員會，甚至尋找一位更有能力的領袖。然而，真正需要更新的，很多時候並不是制度，而是整個群體的文化。

也正因如此，我愈來愈相信，委員會文化的更新，往往不是從革命開始，而是從陪伴開始。

很多時候，人們希望一次過改變所有事情，希望用新的制度取代舊的制度。然而，文化的形成需要時間，文化的更新也同樣需要時間。真正持久的改變，很少是推倒重來，而是透過一些新的習慣，慢慢在群體裡建立新的可能。

例如，在面對重要議題時，領袖是否願意在事情尚未成熟之前，便讓群體一起參與思考，而不是等到方案完成之後才尋求支持？在方向形成之前，是否願意先一起查考聖經、一起禱告，而不是先完成計劃，再邀請神為我們的決定祝福？當不同聲音出現時，是否願意給彼此多一點時間，而不是急於結束討論？這些看似微小的習慣，其實都在慢慢塑造群體。

又例如，執事會在開始討論議程之前，是否願意先用十五至二十分鐘一起查考聖經，並思想今天所面對的問題，與神的話有什麼關係？教牧團隊在面對重要方向時，是否願意預留一段安靜禱告和分享的時間，而不是急於尋找方案？涉及聘牧、架構改革、下一代承接和教會未來方向等重大議題時，是否一定需要在一次會議中完成討論？還是可以容許群體經過幾次聚集，在資訊分享、聆聽、禱告和反思之中，慢慢形成共識？

其實，很多重要的事情，本來就不適合在一次會議裡完成。第一次聚集，也許主要是分享資訊和初步想法；第二次聚集，才開始聆聽彼此的顧慮和不同的聲音；第三次聚集，則可能是一起禱告、重新思想，讓前兩次所聽見的內容慢慢沉澱。很多時候，真正深層的問題，往往不是第一次就能被看見，而是在一次又一次的等待之中，才逐漸浮現。

然而，共同辨識不只是會議技巧，它更需要信任。若一群人彼此不認識，只剩下工作上的合作，那麼共同辨識最後很容易變成政治角力。當彼此之間缺乏生命連結，人們便容易保護自己的部門、自己的事工和自己的想法。於是，會議最後可能只剩下資訊交換、立場協調和權力平衡，而不是一起尋求神。或許正因如此，有時候，一起吃飯、一起禱告、一起分享生命，看似與會議無關，卻可能比修改章程更加重要。因為真正的共同辨識，從來不是建立在制度之上，而是建立在關係之上。

最終來說，會議不是目的，制度也不是目的。真正重要的，不是我們擁有多少委員會，也不是能否找到一套完美的架構，而是這些制度，是否仍然幫助我們一起尋求神。因此，也許當我們下一次走進會議室時，最值得先問的問題，不是：「今天需要完成多少議程？」而是：「我們所建立的文化，究竟正在幫助我們更懂得一起聆聽神？還是只是讓我們更有效率地完成事情？」

而文化的更新，往往不是從革命開始，而是從一群人願意一起慢慢學習開始。

Antony傳道

---

註腳

1. H. Richard Niebuhr, The Social Sources of Denominationalism (New York: Henry Holt, 1929).

2. Edwin H. Friedman, A Failure of Nerve: Leadership in the Age of the Quick Fix (New York: Church Publishing, 2007).

---

Rethinking the Church through Baptist Tradition, History, and Theology (Practical Reflections)

Part 10 - When Structures Already Exist, How Do We Begin to Change?

Renewing Committee Culture Does Not Necessarily Begin with Revolution

If the eighth article suggested that important things need to slow down, and the ninth reminded us that leadership is not merely about making decisions but about shaping communities, then a very practical question naturally arises: when a church already has its constitution, committees, and established culture, how do we begin to change?

After all, most churches are not blank slates. Many congregations have journeyed through decades of history and have accumulated their own structures, habits, and ways of operating. Consequently, when people speak of renewal, they often think first of revising constitutions, reorganizing structures, adding or removing committees, or redistributing responsibilities. Yet the more I reflect on church history, the more I have come to believe that the deepest challenges are rarely structural.

More often, they are cultural.

Structures certainly matter. Yet structures themselves do not automatically produce communal discernment. A church may possess well-designed committees, transparent procedures, fair voting processes, and clearly defined responsibilities, and still not know how to seek God together.

Indeed, if the culture remains unchanged, even the best structures can slowly become little more than routines.

People continue waiting for a few individuals to provide answers.

Committees become places where opinions are exchanged rather than hearts are formed.

Voting becomes a way of determining whose voice carries more weight rather than a practice through which the whole community gradually grows in listening to God together.

In fact, from the nineteenth century onward, many North American churches were deeply influenced by industrialization and modern organizational thinking, gradually developing elaborate committee systems and functional divisions. As H. Richard Niebuhr observed, the organizational mindset of modern society profoundly shaped the church, leading it to understand itself increasingly in terms of efficiency and function.¹

These structures were not inherently problematic, and they have undoubtedly served churches well in many ways.

Yet when structures slowly replace communal life, meetings may become increasingly efficient without necessarily becoming more discerning.

Similarly, Edwin Friedman reminds us that anxious communities are often tempted to seek quick fixes and to assume that changing structures will automatically solve deeper problems.² Consequently, whenever churches encounter difficulties, our first instinct is often to redistribute responsibilities, revise constitutions, add or eliminate committees, or even search for a more capable leader.

Yet what truly requires renewal is often not the structure itself.

It is the culture of the community.

For this reason, I have increasingly come to believe that the renewal of committee culture rarely begins with revolution.

More often, it begins with patiently walking together.

People often hope to change everything at once, replacing old systems with new ones. Yet culture takes time to form, and culture also takes time to renew. Lasting change rarely comes through tearing everything down and starting over.

More often, it emerges through new habits that slowly create new possibilities within a community.

For example, when important issues arise, are leaders willing to invite the community into the process before matters have fully matured, rather than seeking support only after proposals have already been finalized?

Before directions are established, are they willing to study Scripture and pray together, rather than completing plans first and then asking God to bless decisions that have already been made?

When differing voices emerge, are people willing to give one another more time, rather than rushing to bring discussions to an end?

These seemingly small habits quietly shape the life of a community.

Consider, for instance, whether a board of deacons might spend fifteen or twenty minutes studying Scripture together before turning to the agenda, asking how God’s Word speaks to the issues before them.

When pastoral teams face important decisions, might they intentionally reserve time for silence, prayer, and mutual sharing instead of immediately searching for solutions?

And when churches wrestle with matters such as pastoral searches, structural reforms, passing the faith to the next generation, or discerning the future direction of the church, must everything be decided in a single meeting?

Or could the community be allowed to gather several times, moving gradually through information-sharing, listening, prayer, and reflection before consensus begins to emerge?

In truth, many important matters are not meant to be resolved in a single meeting.

The first gathering may simply be a time for sharing information and initial thoughts.

The second may allow people to voice their concerns and hear different perspectives.

By the third gathering, the community may find itself praying together and revisiting what has already been heard, allowing earlier conversations to settle and mature.

Very often, the deepest issues are not visible at the beginning.

They emerge only through repeated seasons of waiting.

Yet communal discernment requires more than meeting techniques.

It requires trust.

For when people do not truly know one another, and their relationships are limited to working together, communal discernment can easily deteriorate into political maneuvering.

Without genuine life together, people naturally begin to protect their own ministries, their own departments, and their own ideas.

Meetings then become exercises in exchanging information, negotiating positions, and balancing power, rather than occasions for seeking God together.

Perhaps this is why seemingly unrelated activities—sharing meals, praying together, and sharing our lives with one another—may ultimately matter more than revising constitutions.

For genuine communal discernment is never built upon structures alone.

It is built upon relationships.

Ultimately, meetings are not the goal, and structures are not the goal.

What matters most is not how many committees we have, nor whether we have discovered the perfect organizational model.

The deeper question is whether these structures are still helping us seek God together.

Therefore, the next time we walk into a meeting room, perhaps the first question worth asking is not,

“How much do we need to accomplish today?”

but rather,

“Is the culture we are building helping us learn to listen to God together?”

“Or is it simply helping us accomplish things more efficiently?”

For the renewal of culture rarely begins with revolution.

More often, it begins with a community willing to slow down, to listen, and to walk together.

Pastor Antony

---

Notes

1. H. Richard Niebuhr, The Social Sources of Denominationalism (New York: Henry Holt, 1929), 101–123.
2. Edwin H. Friedman, A Failure of Nerve: Leadership in the Age of the Quick Fix (New York: Church Publishing, 2007), 19–44.

《從浸信會傳統、歷史與神學重新思想教會（實踐篇）》（9） 領袖如何建立共同辨識文化？ —領導不只是作決定，而是塑造群體

如果說，前一篇所談的是，重要的事情需要慢下來，那麼一個新的問題便自然浮現：慢下來之後，我們究竟在等待什麼？

有時候，當我們談論共同辨識、一起聆聽，以及《使徒行傳》十五章那句「聖靈和我們定意」時，很容易把這些理解成一種抽象的屬靈理想。然而，回顧浸信會的歷史，我愈來愈發現，共同辨識從來不是自然而然發生的事情。它不是一種偶然出現的默契，也不是只要大家一起禱告，就自然會產生共識。相反，共同辨識其實是一種文化，而文化從來不是憑空形成的，它需要被培養，也需要被帶領。

這也是為什麼，真正的領導不只是推動事工、管理資源或作出決定。某程度上，領袖最重要的工作，其實是塑造群體。而一個群體最後會成為怎樣的群體，往往取決於領袖長期所建立的是什麼文化。

然而，對許多華人教會來說，建立共同辨識文化並不容易。因為我們從小所熟悉的文化，往往比較重視權威、經驗和領袖的答案。很多時候，大家會自然期待牧師有答案、執事有方向、領袖能夠快速作出決定。因此，當領袖說：「我暫時也不完全知道，我們一起尋求神吧。」不少人反而會感到不安。因為在許多人的理解裡，領袖應該知道答案，而不是承認自己的有限。

正因如此，共同辨識文化最大的敵人，也許並不是專權，而是整個群體早已習慣由少數人思考，多數人配合；由少數人尋求，多數人接受。這種模式未必出於惡意，也不一定完全錯誤，但久而久之，即使保留了會友大會、委員會和投票制度，群體共同辨識的能力卻可能逐漸萎縮。因為大家已經不再習慣一起尋求神，而是習慣等待答案。

因此，真正的問題從來不只是制度，而是文化。而文化的形成，往往來自一些看似微不足道的小習慣。例如，在面對重要議題時，領袖是否願意在事情尚未成熟之前，便讓群體一起參與思考，而不是等到最後一步才公布結果？在形成方向之前，是否願意先花時間一起查考聖經、一起禱告，而不是先完成方案，再請大家支持？當群體出現不同聲音時，領袖是否急於消除張力，還是願意陪伴大家一起走過這個過程？

很多時候，共同辨識的文化，並不是在正式會議裡形成的，而是在平日一次又一次的互動中慢慢建立起來。例如，執事會在討論議程之前，是否願意先用十五至二十分鐘一起查考聖經，並且思想今天所面對的問題，與神的話有什麼關係？教牧團隊在面對重要方向時，是否願意先預留一段安靜禱告和分享的時間，而不是急於尋找方案？又例如，涉及架構改革、聘牧、下一代承接和教會未來方向等重大議題時，是否一定需要在一次會議中完成討論？還是可以容許群體經過幾次聚集，在資訊分享、聆聽、禱告和反思之中，慢慢形成共識？

而這些看似簡單的小習慣，其實也在慢慢訓練整個群體學習等待。因為共同辨識從來不只是等待更多資訊，而是學習給彼此、給關係，也給聖靈在人心裡工作的空間。很多時候，我們以為答案需要盡快出現，但真正的問題和真正的顧慮，往往需要時間才能慢慢浮現。

某程度上，慢下來之後，我們真正等待的，不是時間過去，而是等待不同聲音慢慢浮現，等待群體的心彼此靠近，也等待聖靈在人心裡工作。因為第一次討論時，往往只有最敢講的人發言；第二次討論時，一些較安靜的人才開始分享；第三次討論時，真正的顧慮和深層的問題才慢慢浮現。因此，共同辨識並不是等待事情自己解決，而是在等待整個群體慢慢一起看見神的帶領。

這也是為什麼，一位好的領袖，不一定是最有答案的人，而是能夠為群體創造空間的人。他願意承認自己的有限，也願意說：「我暫時也未完全明白，但讓我們一起尋求神。」他不急於提供所有答案，也不急於結束張力，而是願意陪伴群體在不確定之中繼續前進。

這樣的領導方式其實並不容易。因為由少數人快速作決定，往往比一群人共同辨識更快、更簡單，也更容易看見成果。然而，共同辨識需要時間，也需要耐性。它容許不確定，也容許群體在摸索之中慢慢前進。對於習慣追求效率的現代人來說，這種領導方式甚至可能令人感到不安。

然而，回顧《使徒行傳》第十五章，我們會發現，使徒和長老所展現的，也正是這樣的領導。他們沒有急於宣布答案，也沒有利用權威壓下不同聲音，而是在辯論、見證、聆聽和禱告之中，帶領整個群體一起辨識神的心意。最後，當共識逐漸形成，他們才一同見證說：「聖靈和我們定意。」（徒十五28）¹

或許，這句話最美的地方，不只是它的結果，而是它背後所代表的過程。因為真正成熟的領袖，從來不只是提供答案的人，而是幫助群體形成答案的人；不是取代群體去尋求神，而是幫助群體學習一起尋求神；不是讓所有人依賴自己，而是帶領整個群體愈來愈懂得依靠基督。

因此，當下一個重要決定來到時，我們需要問的，不只是誰應該作決定，也不只是怎樣才能最快作出決定。或許更深的問題是：

我們真正期待的，是一位擁有所有答案的領袖？還是一群願意一起尋求神的人？

Antony傳道

---

註腳

1. 《使徒行傳》15:1–29。

---

Rethinking the Church through Baptist Tradition, History, and Theology (Practical Reflections) 
Part 9 ：How Do Leaders Cultivate a Culture of Communal Discernment?
Leadership Is Not Merely Making Decisions, but Shaping a Community

If the previous article suggested that important things need to slow down, then a new question naturally arises: once we slow down, what exactly are we waiting for?

When we speak of communal discernment, listening together, and the beautiful phrase from Acts 15—“It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us”—it is easy to treat these as abstract spiritual ideals. Yet the more I reflect on Baptist history, the more I have come to realize that communal discernment does not simply happen by itself. It is not an accidental harmony that appears whenever people pray together, nor does consensus emerge automatically. Rather, communal discernment is a culture. And cultures are never formed spontaneously; they must be cultivated, and they must be led.

This is why leadership is about far more than advancing ministries, managing resources, or making decisions. In many ways, the most important task of a leader is to shape the community itself. And what a church eventually becomes often depends upon the kind of culture its leaders patiently build over time.

For many Chinese churches, however, cultivating a culture of communal discernment is not easy. From childhood, many of us have been shaped by cultures that place a high value on authority, experience, and having answers. People naturally expect pastors to know what to do, deacons to provide direction, and leaders to make decisions quickly. Consequently, when a leader says, “I do not yet have all the answers. Let us seek God together,” people may actually become uneasy. In the minds of many, leaders are expected to possess answers, not acknowledge their limitations.

Perhaps, then, the greatest enemy of communal discernment is not authoritarianism itself, but a community that has gradually become accustomed to a pattern in which a few people do the thinking while the majority simply cooperate; a few people seek God's will while the majority merely accept the answers. Such a pattern may not arise from ill intentions, nor is it entirely wrong. Yet over time, even if congregational meetings, committees, and voting procedures remain intact, the community's capacity for discernment can slowly diminish. People simply become accustomed to waiting for answers rather than seeking God together.

The issue, therefore, is not merely one of structures, but of culture. And culture is often formed through seemingly insignificant habits. When important matters arise, are leaders willing to invite the community into the process before decisions are finalized, rather than presenting conclusions only at the very end? Before establishing a direction, are they willing to spend time studying Scripture and praying together, rather than completing a proposal first and seeking support afterward? When differing voices emerge, are leaders eager to eliminate tension, or are they willing to accompany the community through it?

Very often, a culture of communal discernment is not formed during formal meetings, but through countless ordinary interactions. For example, before discussing agenda items, are deacons willing to spend fifteen or twenty minutes studying Scripture together and asking how God's Word speaks to the issues before them? When facing important questions, are pastoral teams willing to set aside time for silence, prayer, and mutual sharing before rushing toward solutions? And when confronting major matters—such as structural reforms, pastoral searches, the passing of faith to the next generation, or the future direction of the church—must everything be decided in a single meeting? Or can the community be allowed to gather several times, gradually moving through information sharing, listening, prayer, and reflection before arriving at consensus?

These seemingly small practices slowly teach an entire community how to wait. For communal discernment is not merely about waiting for more information. It is about giving space—to one another, to relationships, and to the Holy Spirit's work within people's hearts. We often assume that answers should appear quickly. Yet the deepest questions and the most genuine concerns often take time to surface.

In many ways, what we are truly waiting for after slowing down is not simply the passing of time itself. We are waiting for different voices to emerge. We are waiting for hearts to draw closer together. And we are waiting for the Holy Spirit to work within His people.

For during the first discussion, it is often only the most outspoken voices that are heard. During the second conversation, quieter members begin to speak. By the third gathering, deeper concerns and underlying questions gradually come to the surface.

Communal discernment, therefore, is not about waiting for problems to solve themselves. It is about waiting for the entire community to slowly begin seeing God's leading together.

This is why a good leader is not necessarily the person with the most answers, but the one who creates space for the community. Such a leader is willing to acknowledge his own limitations and say, “I do not yet fully understand, but let us seek God together.” He does not rush to provide every answer, nor does he hurry to bring tensions to an end. Instead, he is willing to accompany the community as it continues its journey together, even in the midst of uncertainty.

This way of leading is not easy. Allowing a few people to make decisions quickly is often faster, simpler, and produces visible results more immediately. Communal discernment, however, requires time and patience. It makes room for uncertainty. It allows communities to move forward slowly, learning and feeling their way together. For modern people accustomed to efficiency and measurable outcomes, such leadership can even feel unsettling.

Yet when we return to Acts 15, we find precisely this kind of leadership among the apostles and elders. They did not hasten to announce a solution, nor did they use authority to suppress opposing voices. Rather, through debate, testimony, listening, and prayer, they guided the entire community in discerning the will of God. And only when consensus gradually emerged were they able to bear witness together:

 “It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us.” (Acts 15:28)¹

Perhaps the beauty of this phrase lies not merely in its outcome, but in the process it represents.

For truly mature leaders are not simply people who provide answers. They are people who help communities form answers. They do not seek God on behalf of the community, but help the community learn to seek God together. They do not make others dependent upon themselves, but lead the whole body to depend more deeply upon Christ.

Therefore, when the next important decision arrives, perhaps the question we need to ask is not merely who should make the decision, nor even how we can make the decision most efficiently.

Perhaps the deeper question is this:

What are we truly looking for?

A leader who possesses all the answers?

Or a people who are willing to seek God together?

Pastor Antony

Notes

1. Acts 15:1–29.

Originally written in Chinese.  

English translation assisted by ChatGPT.