Einige Punkte gilt es zu beachten Brazilian Studio

2026年6月9日星期二

《從浸信會傳統、歷史與神學重新思想教會》(7) 我們是否仍然願意一起聆聽? ——從「聖靈和我們定意」走向今天的教會

在前六篇文章裡,我們先後談到領導、治理、教會、多元、自由與張力。表面上,這些主題彼此不同,但回頭再看,我一直不太希望這個系列只停留在浸信會歷史、制度或神學觀念的介紹。事實上,無論是領導方式、會眾治理、地方教會自治,還是信徒皆祭司,這些都不是最終目的。我更希望透過回顧浸信會四百多年的歷史與神學,重新思想一個看似古老、卻始終沒有過時的問題:當我們說自己是浸信會時,我們究竟承繼了什麼?

若說前面六篇文章主要是在回顧浸信會不同的信念和傳統,那麼到了這裡,我們或許可以開始把目光慢慢帶回今天的教會現場。因為歷史和神學若不能進入今天的牧養與群體生活,它們很容易再次變成知識;而傳統若不能在當代處境中被重新活出,也可能逐漸只剩下形式。

當我們一步一步走到這裡,我愈來愈覺得,浸信會最珍貴的遺產,或許從來不只是一套制度,也不只是某種治理模式,而是一種深刻的信念:神仍然帶領祂的教會,而祂不只向個人說話,也向整個群體說話。

然而,真正困難的地方,或許從來不是理解這個信念,而是如何在今天重新活出這個信念。

畢竟,我們不可能回到十七世紀,也不可能複製初代教會的處境。我們仍然需要章程,需要委員會,需要預算,需要行政和組織;我們所面對的問題,也與四百年前截然不同。因此,問題從來不是如何回到過去,而是如何在今天重新學習共同辨識,重新學習一起聆聽。

某程度上,共同辨識從來不是在危機出現時才突然開始的事情,而是一種需要長時間培養的文化。它不是一次會議,也不是一套程序,而是一種群體生活的方式。如果平日沒有建立彼此信任、彼此聆聽和一起尋求神的習慣,那麼當真正的張力和重大決定出現時,我們很容易重新回到效率、權力和個人意見之中。因此,也許今天最重要的問題,不是如何建立更多制度,而是如何在既有制度之中,重新建立共同尋求神的文化。

這或許意味著,領袖需要少一點急於解決所有問題,多一點容許群體慢慢形成答案。並不是每一個張力都需要立即消失,也不是每一個不同聲音都必須盡快統一。有時候,慢下來並不代表缺乏效率,而是承認教會真正的主人不是我們,而是基督;教會真正的方向,也不只是靠人的智慧和經驗形成。

很多時候,我們習慣先討論、先分析、先形成方案,最後再用幾分鐘禱告。久而久之,禱告仍然存在,屬靈語言仍然存在,但真正一起尋求神的空間,卻可能愈來愈少。

有時候,當方案其實早已形成、方向其實早已確定,我們才邀請神加入我們的計劃,希望祂祝福我們已經決定好的事情。於是,禱告慢慢變成對既定方向的祝福,而不再是整個群體共同尋求神心意的開始。因此,也許更值得我們反思的問題,不是每次開會之前有沒有禱告,而是我們是否真的願意在作決定之前,一起安靜、一起查考聖經、一起等待。我們是否願意讓神的話語塑造我們,而不是只是利用經文支持我們原本的想法?

同樣地,成熟的群體,也不一定代表所有人擁有相同的看法。不同的恩賜、不同的世代、不同的背景,本來就會帶來不同的聲音。成熟並不等於一致,合一也不等於所有人都變成一樣。真正的成熟,或許是當不同的人仍然願意彼此尊重、彼此聆聽,並且相信神能夠透過整個群體工作。而這也意味著,領袖的角色需要重新被理解。

很多時候,我們習慣把領導理解為提供答案、推動方向和作出決定。然而,回顧浸信會的歷史,我愈來愈覺得,真正的領導,或許不是替所有人思考,也不是替所有人作決定,而是幫助群體一起在神面前思考;不是急於提供答案,而是幫助群體慢慢形成答案;不是讓所有人跟隨自己,而是帶領整個群體一起跟隨基督。

然而,這樣的文化,其實並不容易建立。它需要時間,需要耐性,也需要彼此信任。在一個強調效率、速度和成果的時代,共同辨識往往顯得緩慢,甚至令人感到不安。然而,也許正因如此,它更成為一種信靠神的生活方式。因為共同辨識之所以值得,不是因為它永遠有效率,而是因為它背後隱含著一個更深的信念:我們相信,神仍然帶領祂的教會。

因此,我愈來愈覺得,《使徒行傳》第十五章那句話之所以如此美麗,不是因為它提供了一套完美的治理模式,也不是因為它保證所有衝突都能夠被解決,而是因為它見證了一群人,即使面對差異、張力和不確定,仍然願意一起尋求神。

然後,他們說:「聖靈和我們定意。」(徒十五28)¹

這句話之所以動人,不只是因為它屬於初代教會,也因為它提醒我們,教會真正的盼望,從來不在於擁有最完善的制度、最有效率的領導,或最正確的程序,而在於我們仍然相信,基督仍然是教會的主,而聖靈仍然在祂的百姓中工作。

或許,這並不只是初代教會的一句話。它也是今天每一間教會、每一位牧者、每一位執事、每一位領袖所需要重新學習的一句話。而當我們完成對浸信會歷史與神學的回顧之後,也許真正重要的問題,從來不只是浸信會曾經相信什麼,而是今天的我們,是否仍然願意一起聆聽。

Antony傳道


註腳

  1. 《使徒行傳》15:1–29。

Rethinking the Church through Baptist Tradition, History, and Theology 

Part 7 - Are We Still Willing to Listen Together? From “It Seemed Good to the Holy Spirit and to Us” to the Church Today

In the previous six articles, we have explored leadership, church governance, the nature of the church, diversity, freedom, and the tensions that inevitably arise within Christian communities. Although these themes may seem quite different from one another, I have never intended this series to become merely an introduction to Baptist history, structures, or theological ideas. Rather, through revisiting more than four centuries of Baptist history and theology, I hope we may reconsider an ancient question that has never ceased to be relevant:

When we call ourselves Baptists, what exactly have we inherited?

If the first six articles have mainly examined the convictions and traditions that shaped Baptist life, perhaps at this point we can begin to turn our attention back to the realities of the church today. History and theology, if they never enter into the life of the church, easily become mere knowledge. Likewise, traditions that are not continually embodied within contemporary contexts may eventually remain only as forms and structures.

As I have worked through these reflections, I have become increasingly convinced that the most precious Baptist legacy has never been simply a system of governance or a particular organizational model. Rather, it is a profound conviction: God still leads His church, and He speaks not only to individuals, but also to His people together.

Yet perhaps the real challenge has never been understanding this conviction.

The greater challenge lies in learning how to live it out again today.

After all, we cannot return to the seventeenth century, nor can we recreate the circumstances of the early church. We still need constitutions, committees, budgets, administration, and organizational structures. The questions we face are very different from those faced four hundred years ago. Therefore, the issue has never been how to return to the past, but how to relearn communal discernment and how to listen together once again.

In many ways, communal discernment does not suddenly begin when a crisis arises. It is a culture that must be cultivated over time. It is not merely a meeting, nor simply a procedure, but a way of life within the community. If trust, mutual listening, and the habit of seeking God together are absent in ordinary times, then when genuine tensions and major decisions emerge, we naturally fall back into efficiency, power, and personal opinions. Perhaps, therefore, the most important question facing the church today is not how to create more structures, but how to rediscover a culture of seeking God together within the structures we already possess.

This may mean that leaders need to become less anxious about solving every problem immediately and more willing to allow the community to arrive at answers slowly. Not every tension needs to disappear at once, nor must every differing voice be quickly brought into line. Sometimes slowing down is not a sign of inefficiency; rather, it is an acknowledgment that the true owner of the church is not ourselves, but Christ, and that the direction of the church is shaped by more than human wisdom and experience.

Too often, we discuss first, analyze first, formulate plans first, and then reserve a few minutes for prayer at the end. Over time, prayer remains, spiritual language remains, but the actual space in which we seek God together slowly becomes smaller.

Sometimes the plans have already been formed and the direction has already been decided before we invite God into our agenda and ask Him to bless what we have already chosen. Prayer gradually becomes a blessing upon predetermined decisions, rather than the beginning of a community’s shared search for God’s will.

Perhaps, then, the more important question is not whether we pray before meetings, but whether we are genuinely willing to become quiet together before making decisions, to search the Scriptures together, and to wait together. Are we willing to allow God’s Word to shape us, rather than merely using Scripture to support ideas we have already embraced?

Likewise, a mature church is not necessarily one in which everyone holds the same opinions. Different gifts, generations, and backgrounds naturally give rise to different perspectives. Maturity is not the same as uniformity, and unity does not mean that everyone becomes alike. Perhaps true maturity is found when people who disagree still choose to respect one another, listen to one another, and trust that God is able to work through the whole body.

And this also requires us to rethink the role of leadership.

Too often, leadership is understood as providing answers, setting direction, and making decisions. Yet as I look back on Baptist history, I have become increasingly convinced that true leadership is not about thinking on behalf of everyone else, nor making every decision for them. Rather, it is about helping the community think before God together. It is not about supplying answers too quickly, but about helping the community slowly arrive at answers. It is not about gathering followers around oneself, but about leading the whole church to follow Christ together.

Such a culture, however, is not easily built. It requires time, patience, and trust. In an age that prizes efficiency, speed, and measurable results, communal discernment often appears painfully slow and even unsettling. Yet perhaps that is precisely why it becomes a way of trusting God. For communal discernment is valuable not because it is always efficient, but because it rests upon a deeper conviction:

We believe that God still leads His church.

That is why I find the words of Acts 15 so beautiful. Not because they offer a perfect model of church governance, nor because they guarantee that every conflict will be resolved, but because they testify to a group of believers who, in the midst of differences, tensions, and uncertainties, remained willing to seek God together.

And then they were able to say:

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

These words are beautiful not simply because they belong to the early church, but because they remind us that the hope of the church has never rested in possessing the most perfect structures, the most efficient leadership, or the most flawless procedures. Rather, our hope rests in the conviction that Christ remains the Lord of His church, and that the Holy Spirit still works among His people.

Perhaps these words do not belong only to the first-century church.

Perhaps they are words that every church, every pastor, every deacon, and every leader must learn again.

And after completing this journey through Baptist history and theology, perhaps the most important question is not merely what Baptists once believed.

The more important question is whether we today are still willing to listen together.

Pastor Antony Lee


Notes

  1. ¹ Acts 15:1–29.
Originally written in Chinese.  

English translation assisted by ChatGPT.

2026年6月8日星期一

《從浸信會傳統、歷史與神學重新思想教會》(6)- 當不同的人都愛主,張力從何而來?—成熟不是沒有張力,而是學習在張力中同行


完成前面兩篇之後,我們或許會發現一件有趣的事情。如果第四篇所談的是,多元並不是浸信會的意外,而是信徒皆祭司所帶來的自然結果;第五篇所談的是,自由並不等於人人都有自己的真理,而是在共同核心之下共同順服神的話語;那麼,一個新的問題便會自然浮現:如果大家都愛主,都相信聖經,也都真誠地希望教會更好,為什麼教會裡仍然會出現張力?

很多時候,我們習慣把教會衝突理解成對與錯、正統與異端、愛主與不愛主之間的對立。然而,教會生活的現實往往比這更加複雜。許多張力的出現,不是因為有人故意反對真理,也不是因為有人不愛主,而是因為不同的人,在同一個信仰核心之下,看見不同的重要性。

有人特別重視聖經教導,希望教會扎根於真理;有人對禱告、靈修和內在生命有深切負擔;有人認為宣教與福音工作應當成為優先;有人則深深關心家庭、下一代和跨代同行;有人重視敬拜更新,也有人關心社區關懷和社會責任。很多時候,這些不同的強調本身並沒有對錯之分,它們甚至都可能是神放在不同肢體身上的恩賜和負擔。然而,當這些不同的優先次序開始影響事工方向、資源分配和群體文化時,張力便自然產生。

然而,張力的來源其實不只是不同的神學強調。很多時候,世代之間的文化差異、不同成長背景所形成的價值觀、過去受傷的經驗、對領袖的信任程度、對改變速度的期待,甚至彼此溝通方式的不同,都可能成為張力的來源。同一句話,在不同的人耳中,可能有完全不同的感受;同一個決定,在不同世代眼中,也可能代表完全不同的意義。因此,大部分教會真正面對的,其實不是善與惡的衝突,而是不同的善之間的張力。

有人希望教會更重視真理,有人希望教會更重視關係;有人關心下一代,有人希望保護傳承;有人期待更新,有人看重穩定;有人認為應當大膽向前,也有人認為應當慢慢前進。很多時候,雙方都愛主,也都真誠地希望教會更健康,只是所看見的重點不盡相同。

某程度上,這也是為什麼張力的存在,本身不一定代表失敗。我們常常以為,一間成熟的教會應該沒有衝突、沒有不舒服、沒有不同意見。然而,回顧教會歷史,我愈來愈覺得,成熟並不意味著張力消失,而是即使張力存在,人仍然願意彼此相愛,仍然願意一起跟隨基督。真正值得關心的,從來不是如何完全消除張力,而是如何在張力之中仍然一起跟隨基督。

然而,人面對張力時,往往有一種自然的傾向,就是希望盡快消除它。我們希望快速形成共識,希望所有人擁有相同想法,希望以更有效率的方法推動事情。有時候,我們甚至會把差異視為威脅,把不同聲音看成阻力,把張力本身理解為不成熟的表現。於是,有些人選擇用權威來消除張力;有些人希望用投票快速結束討論;有些人選擇保持沉默,不再表達自己的想法;也有人乾脆離開群體,希望藉著距離來換取平靜。然而,很多時候,被消除的未必是張力,而是彼此之間的關係。

某程度上,浸信會歷史中一個十分可貴的地方,正在於它一直嘗試保護一件事情:即使不能立刻達成一致,也不要輕易失去彼此。或許正因如此,許多在浸信會成長的人,都曾經見過一些十分熟悉的畫面。會議裡,大家可能為著某個議題激烈討論,甚至爭辯得面紅耳赤;有人希望快一點,有人希望慢一點;有人看重傳承,也有人期待更新。然而,當會議結束之後,大家卻仍然可以一起去飲茶、彼此關心、談笑風生。

這種畫面在外人眼中或許顯得有些奇怪,但它背後其實反映了一種深層的信念:我們可以對事情有不同看法,卻不需要因此失去彼此。我們可以在意見上存在張力,卻仍然在基督裡屬於同一個身體。當然,現實並不總是如此美好,浸信會歷史上也曾經有分裂、有傷害、有彼此失望的時候。然而,這種願意把「不同意見」與「彼此相愛」同時放在一起的精神,或許正是浸信會最珍貴的遺產之一。

也正因如此,回顧浸信會的歷史,我們可能會發現,一個成熟的群體,不一定是沒有張力的群體,而是一個有能力承受張力的群體。正如上一篇所談到,共同辨識的目的,從來不是讓每一個人都變得一樣,而是在聖靈帶領之下,一起尋求神的心意。然而,要真正走到那裡,群體首先需要學習一件更困難的事:如何在張力之中,仍然願意同行。

今天,我們習慣用效率來衡量領導,用速度來評估成功。然而,在浸信會的傳統裡,領袖最大的責任,往往不是立刻解決所有張力,而是不讓張力演變成分裂。因此,成熟的屬靈領袖所需要的,不只是管理能力,更是一種承受張力的能力。

他們需要在群體焦慮時保持平靜,也需要幫助整個群體學習,不把不同意見過度個人化。很多時候,當張力出現時,我們很容易把不同的觀點理解成對自己的否定,把對事工方向的不同看法,誤以為是對自己的不接納。於是,本來可以一起討論的事情,慢慢變成彼此之間的受傷和防衛。

然而,教會並不是許多彼此競爭的部門,而是一個身體。正如保羅所描繪的,身體上的各個肢體雖然功能不同,卻彼此影響,也彼此需要。因此,不同的聲音不一定代表威脅,不同的負擔也不一定代表競爭。當我們愈來愈明白自己原本就彼此屬於對方時,便會慢慢發現,承受張力本身其實是一種屬靈操練。

這種操練,不只是學習忍耐不同意見,更是學習從「我的事工」、「你的事工」、「我的看法」、「你的看法」,慢慢轉向「我們的教會」。它提醒我們,教會不是許多彼此競爭的單位,而是一個共同承擔使命的身體。四肢之間彼此影響,也彼此需要,因此真正成熟的群體,不是各自為政,而是學習彼此合作、彼此成全。

這種屬靈操練,往往比我們想像中更加具體。有時候,它意味著在會議裡,不急於立刻表決,而是先耐心聆聽彼此的顧慮;有時候,它意味著容許群體暫時停留在「尚未完全有答案」的狀態,因為形成共識,往往比快速作出決定更加重要。

正如 E. Y. Mullins 所強調,浸信會的自由傳統從來不是鼓勵每一個人堅持自己,而是相信在共同順服基督之下,群體能夠慢慢形成真正的合一。¹ 因此,成熟的領袖,不一定能夠讓所有人滿意,也不一定能夠迅速消除所有問題,但他們需要幫助整個群體從「誰對誰錯」,慢慢轉向「神正在帶領我們看見什麼」。

或許,這也是今天許多華人教會最困難的一課。我們其實並不缺乏章程、委員會、投票和組織架構,也不缺乏能力和熱心。然而,當面對張力時,我們往往希望盡快找到答案,盡快解決問題,盡快恢復一致。於是,我們可能愈來愈擅長管理事情,卻不一定愈來愈懂得承受張力;愈來愈熟悉如何推動事工,卻不一定愈來愈熟悉如何學習成為一個身體。

回顧浸信會四百多年的歷史,我愈來愈覺得,它最珍貴的地方,或許不在於提供一套能夠消除所有衝突的制度,而在於相信,神往往不是透過消除張力來塑造祂的教會,而是在張力之中,慢慢塑造祂的百姓。

因此,一間成熟的浸信會,不是從來沒有不一致,也不是所有問題都能迅速得到答案,而是即使仍然存在不同的聲音、不同的步伐和不同的看見,整個群體仍然願意彼此相愛、彼此等待,並且相信基督仍然是教會的主。

因為在浸信會的傳統裡,我們不需要等到完全同意彼此,才彼此相愛。

Antony傳道


註腳

  1. E. Y. Mullins, The Axioms of Religion (Philadelphia: Judson Press, 1908), 53–74.


Rethinking the Church from Baptist Tradition, History and Theology

Part 6 —When Everyone Loves Christ, Where Does Tension Come From?

Why Mature Baptist Churches Learn to Bear Tension Rather Than Eliminate It

After the previous two essays, we may begin to notice something interesting. If Part Four argued that diversity is not an accident within Baptist life but a natural consequence of the priesthood of all believers, and Part Five reminded us that freedom does not mean everyone possesses his or her own truth, but rather that God's people are called to submit together to the authority of Scripture, then another question naturally emerges:

If everyone loves Christ, believes the Bible, and sincerely desires what is best for the church, why do tensions still arise?

We often assume that conflict in the church must be the result of some opposition between right and wrong, orthodoxy and heresy, faithfulness and unfaithfulness. Yet the reality of church life is usually much more complicated. Many tensions do not arise because people reject the truth or lack devotion to Christ. Rather, they arise because believers who share the same gospel foundation often perceive different priorities.

Some place particular emphasis on biblical teaching and theological depth. Others carry a deep burden for prayer, spiritual formation, and the inner life. Some believe evangelism and missions should remain at the forefront of the church's ministry, while others are especially concerned about families, the next generation, and intergenerational relationships. Still others devote themselves to worship renewal, community engagement, or social responsibility. None of these concerns are inherently wrong. In fact, they may all represent gifts and burdens that God has entrusted to different members of the body. Yet when these differing emphases begin to shape ministry priorities, resource allocation, and congregational culture, tension naturally emerges.

Nor do tensions arise only from theological emphases. Differences in generations, cultural backgrounds, personal experiences, past wounds, levels of trust in leadership, expectations regarding change, and even communication styles all contribute to the complexity of church life. The same statement may be heard very differently by different people, and the same decision may carry very different meanings for different generations. As a result, many churches are not struggling with a conflict between good and evil, but with tensions between competing goods.

Some believers emphasize truth, while others emphasize relationships. Some are passionate about reaching the next generation, while others feel responsible for preserving the legacy they have received. Some long for renewal, while others value stability. Some wish to move boldly forward, while others believe wisdom requires patience. In many cases, both sides love Christ and sincerely desire the health of the church. They simply perceive different priorities.

For that reason, the presence of tension should not automatically be interpreted as failure. We often imagine that a mature church is one without disagreement, discomfort, or conflict. Yet the longer I study church history, the more convinced I become that maturity does not mean the disappearance of tension. Rather, maturity means that even in the midst of tension, believers continue to love one another and remain committed to following Christ together. The question is not how to eliminate tension altogether, but how to remain faithful to Christ in the midst of it.

Naturally, however, our instinct is often to remove tension as quickly as possible. We long for immediate consensus. We prefer efficiency and speed. Sometimes we even regard differing voices as threats and disagreement itself as evidence of immaturity. Consequently, some seek to resolve tension through authority. Others hope that a quick vote will settle the matter. Some choose silence and withdraw from meaningful conversation, while others simply leave the community altogether. Yet very often, what ends up being eliminated is not the tension itself, but the relationships that hold the community together.

Perhaps one of the most beautiful features of Baptist life throughout history has been its attempt to preserve fellowship even when agreement is incomplete. Many people raised within Baptist churches have witnessed familiar scenes. In a meeting, passionate debates may erupt over a particular issue. Some advocate moving faster; others urge caution. Some wish to preserve tradition, while others hope for renewal. Voices may become intense, and disagreements may be strong.

Yet when the meeting ends, everyone goes out together for dim sum.

They laugh. They talk. They care for one another.

To outsiders, such scenes may seem strange. Yet beneath them lies a profound conviction: we may disagree about many things without losing one another. We may experience tension without ceasing to belong to the same body of Christ.

Of course, Baptist history has not always lived up to this ideal. There have been divisions, disappointments, and painful wounds. Nevertheless, this determination to hold together disagreement and brotherly love may be one of the most precious aspects of the Baptist heritage.

For this reason, the history of the Baptist movement suggests that a mature church is not necessarily a church without tension, but rather a church capable of bearing tension. As we noted in the previous essay, communal discernment does not aim to make everyone identical; it seeks to help God's people pursue His will together under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Yet before such discernment can occur, the community must learn something even more difficult: how to continue walking together in the midst of tension.

In our age, leadership is often measured by efficiency and speed. Yet within the Baptist tradition, the task of leadership has never been simply to remove tension as quickly as possible, but to prevent tension from becoming division. Consequently, mature spiritual leaders require more than administrative competence. They need the capacity to bear tension.

They must remain calm when the community becomes anxious. They must help people resist taking disagreements too personally. Too often, differences over ministry directions are interpreted as personal rejection. Conversations that could have remained constructive gradually become occasions for hurt and defensiveness.

Yet the church is not a collection of competing departments; it is a body. The members of the body possess different functions, but they belong to one another and depend upon one another. Different voices are not necessarily threats, and different burdens are not necessarily rivals. As we increasingly recognize that we belong to one another in Christ, we begin to discover that bearing tension itself becomes a spiritual discipline.

Such a discipline calls us to move beyond "my ministry" and "your ministry," beyond "my perspective" and "your perspective," and toward the larger question of "our church." It reminds us that the church is not a collection of independent territories but a community entrusted with a common mission. True maturity is not found in isolation, but in learning to serve, cooperate, and strengthen one another.

This spiritual discipline takes surprisingly practical forms. Sometimes it means refusing to rush into a vote and instead patiently listening to one another's concerns. At other times, it means allowing the congregation to remain temporarily in a place where answers are not yet entirely clear, recognizing that genuine consensus is often more valuable than immediate decisions.

As E. Y. Mullins repeatedly emphasized, Baptist freedom was never intended to encourage stubborn individualism. Rather, it rests upon the conviction that true unity emerges gradually as God's people submit together to Christ.¹ Mature leaders, therefore, are not those who satisfy everyone or quickly remove every difficulty. Rather, they help the congregation move from asking, "Who is right and who is wrong?" to asking, "What might God be showing us?"

Perhaps this is one of the hardest lessons facing many Chinese churches today. We do not lack constitutions, committees, votes, organizational structures, or devoted people. Yet when tensions arise, we often long for immediate solutions and rapid consensus. We may become increasingly skilled at managing ministries without becoming equally skilled at bearing tension. We may know how to move programs forward, yet struggle to learn what it means to live together as one body.

The more I reflect on four centuries of Baptist history, the more convinced I become that its greatest gift is not a system capable of eliminating every conflict. Rather, it is the conviction that God often forms His people not by removing tension, but by working through it.

A mature Baptist church, therefore, is not one in which everyone always agrees, nor one in which every question is quickly answered. It is a church in which believers continue to love one another, wait for one another, and trust that Christ remains the Lord of His church, even when different voices, different rhythms, and different perspectives remain.

For within the Baptist tradition, we do not need to agree completely before we love one another.

Pastor Antony Lee


Notes

¹ E. Y. Mullins, The Axioms of Religion (Philadelphia: Judson Press, 1908), 53–74.

Originally written in Chinese.  
English translation assisted by ChatGPT.

2026年6月7日星期日

《從浸信會傳統、歷史與神學重新思想教會》(5)- 信徒皆祭司,不等於人人都有自己的真理

在上一篇文章裡,我們談到,信徒皆祭司所帶來的其中一個結果,就是在共同的福音核心之下,浸信會能夠容納不同的屬靈氣質、不同的恩賜方向,以及不同的神學強調。然而,多元所帶來的自由,也自然令人產生一個更深的疑問:如果每一位信徒都能直接來到基督面前,每一位信徒都能閱讀聖經、聆聽聖靈,那是否意味著每一個人的理解都同樣正確?信徒皆祭司,是否最終會走向「人人都有自己的真理」?

這個問題,其實並不只是今天才出現。自宗教改革以來,人們便一直擔心,當真理不再完全掌握在教宗、主教或神職階層手中時,是否最終會走向另一個極端——每一個人都成為自己的權威,每一個人都擁有自己的真理。某程度上,浸信會的歷史,其實一直活在這兩個極端之間。一方面,它拒絕把真理完全交給少數人壟斷;另一方面,它也拒絕把真理化約成無數個人的意見。¹

因此,信徒皆祭司從來不等於「人人都是自己的教宗」,也不等於「我的感動就是最高權威」。相反,早期浸信會相信,每一位信徒都直接向基督負責,因此每一位信徒都有責任謙卑地閱讀聖經、聆聽聖靈,並且在教會群體之中共同尋求真理。換句話說,信徒皆祭司所帶來的,不只是自由,也包括責任;不只是權利,也包括順服。²

因此,真正擁有最高權威的,不是個人的感受,也不是某一位領袖的意見,而是神藉著聖經所啟示的真理。每一位信徒都需要在聖經面前受教,而不是利用聖經去支持自己的想法。某程度上,信徒皆祭司並不是讓每一個人成為真理的來源,而是讓每一個人都一起成為真理的學習者。

然而,這裡也出現一個十分真實的問題。即使大家都承認聖經的權威,即使大家都閱讀同一本聖經,人們仍然可能得出不同的理解。事實上,教會歷史本身便證明了這一點。不同時代、不同文化背景、不同神學傳統的信徒,往往會對同一段經文產生不同的強調。若是如此,聖經的權威究竟如何在實踐中發揮作用?

浸信會的答案,並不是把問題重新交給某一位絕對權威來處理,也不是任由每一個人堅持自己的看法。相反,它相信,聖經的權威並不是一部自動產生答案的機器,而是要求整個群體共同順服神的話語。因此,閱讀聖經從來不是一個孤立的行動,而是一個需要歷代教會、屬靈傳統、群體生活和彼此提醒的過程。真正成熟的信仰,不是愈來愈相信自己永遠正確,而是愈來愈願意被神的話語修正,也愈來愈願意被基督的身體提醒。³

因此,浸信會一直活在一個充滿張力的中間位置。它既不像天主教那樣把最終詮釋權交給教宗和主教團,也不像現代個人主義那樣讓每一個人自定真理。它相信,真理不是由少數人壟斷,也不是由個人擁有,而是在聖靈帶領之下,整個群體一起閱讀聖經、彼此提醒、彼此修正、共同辨識,並逐漸學習順服神的真理。

這也是《使徒行傳》第十五章之所以如此重要的原因。當初代教會面對重大爭議時,使徒和長老並沒有單方面宣布答案,也沒有讓每一個人各自堅持自己的立場。相反,彼得、保羅、巴拿巴和雅各都參與其中,而整個群體也一起經歷辯論、見證、聆聽和思考,最後說出一句十分美麗的話:「聖靈和我們定意。」(徒十五28)

這句話之所以動人,是因為它既不是「只有我定意」,也不是「只有領袖定意」,而是在聖靈帶領之下,領袖與群體共同辨識所形成的見證。

當然,共同辨識並不保證永遠不會出現衝突,也不保證每一次都能順利形成共識。事實上,人可能固執己見,也可能拒絕被提醒,甚至不願意接受群體的勸戒。因此,浸信會從來不是一個沒有張力的傳統。它需要耐性,需要彼此勸勉,需要屬靈領導,也需要某種形式的教會紀律。自由從來不是沒有界線,而是願意在基督的身體之中學習彼此順服。

某程度上,這也是今天許多教會領袖最常面對的挑戰。真正的領導,不是替所有人思想,也不是放任所有人各自思想;不是重新建立一個絕對權威,也不是讓群體陷入各說各話。真正的領導,是幫助群體一起在聖經面前受教,一起在神的話語面前被塑造,一起學習聆聽聖靈的帶領。

回顧浸信會四百多年的歷史,我愈來愈覺得,它最珍貴的地方,不在於給予每一個人絕對的自主權,而在於它相信,每一位信徒都能直接回應神,同時也需要在群體之中共同尋求神。信徒皆祭司所保護的,從來不是「我的真理」,而是「我們一起尋求神的真理」;它所反對的,也不只是權力集中,更是人以自己取代基督。
因此,信徒皆祭司所要建立的,不是一群堅持自己的人,而是一群願意一起在神話語面前被塑造的人。

Antony傳

1. Timothy George, Theology of the Reformers (Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 2013), 85–97.George 指出,宗教改革一方面反對教會權威的壟斷,但同時也拒絕無限制的個人主義。

2. E. Y. Mullins, The Axioms of Religion (Philadelphia: Judson Press, 1908), 53–74.Mullins 認為,靈魂能力(Soul Competency)意味著每一位信徒都能直接回應神,但也必須親自向神負責。

3. James Leo Garrett Jr., Baptist Theology: A Four-Century Study (Macon: Mercer University Press, 2009), 169–188.Garrett 認為,浸信會對聖經權威的理解,從來不是孤立的個人詮釋,而是建立在群體生活與共同順服之上。

4. 《使徒行傳》15:1–29;另參 Fisher Humphreys, The Way We Were: How Southern Baptists Lost Their Way and Found It Again (Macon: Smyth & Helwys, 2002), 61–75. Humphreys 認為,《使徒行傳》十五章所呈現的,不是絕對權威,也不是個人主義,而是群體共同辨識的典範。

Rethinking the Church from Baptist Tradition, History and Theology

Part 5 — The Priesthood of All Believers Is Not Individualism


In the previous essay, we considered one of the implications of the priesthood of all believers: under the shared center of the gospel, Baptist churches have historically been able to accommodate a remarkable variety of spiritual temperaments, gifts, and theological emphases. Yet the freedom that accompanies such diversity naturally raises a deeper question. If every believer has direct access to Christ, if every Christian is able to read Scripture and respond to the leading of the Holy Spirit, does this mean that every interpretation is equally valid? Does the priesthood of all believers ultimately lead to the conclusion that everyone possesses his or her own truth?

In reality, this concern is hardly new. Since the time of the Reformation, Christians have worried that once truth was no longer entrusted exclusively to popes, bishops, or ecclesiastical hierarchies, the pendulum might swing toward the opposite extreme, where each individual becomes his own authority and every person claims possession of a private truth. In many respects, Baptist history has always lived within the tension between these two dangers. On the one hand, Baptists have consistently resisted the monopolization of truth by a select few. On the other hand, they have been equally unwilling to reduce truth to a collection of private opinions.¹

For this reason, the priesthood of all believers has never meant that every Christian becomes his own pope, nor that personal impressions possess ultimate authority. Early Baptists believed that because every believer stands directly accountable to Christ, every believer bears the responsibility of approaching Scripture humbly, listening to the Spirit attentively, and seeking the truth together within the life of the church. In this sense, the priesthood of all believers brings not only freedom, but responsibility; not only privilege, but obedience.²

Consequently, ultimate authority belongs neither to individual feelings nor to the opinions of church leaders, but to the truth God has revealed through Scripture. Every believer stands under the authority of God's Word and is called to be taught by it rather than to use it merely to reinforce personal preferences. The priesthood of all believers does not make each person a source of truth; rather, it makes every believer a student of the truth.

Yet this raises another very real question. Even when Christians affirm the authority of Scripture and read the same Bible, they often arrive at different conclusions. Church history itself bears witness to this reality. Believers from different periods, cultures, and theological traditions have frequently emphasized different aspects of the same biblical texts. If this is so, how does the authority of Scripture actually function in practice?

The Baptist answer has never been to hand the problem back to some absolute human authority, nor simply to allow every individual to insist upon his own interpretation. Instead, Baptists have understood that the authority of Scripture is not a machine that automatically produces answers. It calls the whole church into submission to the Word of God. Consequently, reading Scripture has never been understood as an isolated activity. It is a task carried out within the life of the church, enriched by the witness of previous generations, shaped by various spiritual traditions, and sustained through mutual correction and encouragement. Mature faith is not marked by increasing confidence in one's own infallibility, but by an increasing willingness to be corrected by the Word of God and reminded by the body of Christ.³

In this sense, Baptists have historically occupied a rather demanding middle position. Unlike Roman Catholicism, they do not place ultimate interpretive authority in the hands of popes or episcopal structures. Yet neither do they embrace the individualism that characterizes much of modern culture. Baptists believe that truth belongs neither to a privileged few nor to isolated individuals. Rather, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, the whole community is called to read Scripture together, to admonish and correct one another, and gradually to learn obedience to God's truth through communal discernment.

This is one reason why Acts 15 has held such enduring significance within the Baptist tradition. When the early church faced a controversy that threatened the future of the gospel itself, the apostles and elders neither imposed a unilateral decision nor allowed everyone to cling stubbornly to personal convictions. Peter, Paul, Barnabas, and James all played important roles, and the whole church participated in a process of testimony, debate, listening, and reflection. Eventually, they arrived at one of the most beautiful statements in the New Testament:

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

The beauty of these words lies precisely in what they avoid. They do not say, “It seemed good to me,” nor do they imply that authority belongs only to leaders. Rather, they bear witness to a community that, under the leading of the Holy Spirit, discerned God's will together.⁴

Of course, communal discernment does not guarantee the absence of conflict, nor does it ensure that consensus will always be achieved easily. Human beings are capable of stubbornness, resistant to correction, and reluctant to receive the admonition of the community. For this reason, Baptist life has never been free from tension. It requires patience, mutual exhortation, spiritual leadership, and even forms of church discipline. Freedom is never the absence of boundaries. Rather, it is the willingness to learn submission within the body of Christ.

In many ways, this remains one of the greatest challenges facing church leaders today. Authentic leadership does not consist in thinking on behalf of everyone else, nor in allowing everyone to think only for themselves. It neither seeks to re-establish absolute human authority nor permits the church to dissolve into competing voices. Rather, true leadership helps God's people sit together under the authority of Scripture, be shaped together by the Word of God, and learn together to listen to the voice of the Holy Spirit.

Looking back over four centuries of Baptist history, I have increasingly come to believe that one of its greatest gifts lies not in granting unlimited autonomy to individuals, but in affirming that every believer can respond directly to God while also recognizing the need to seek Him together within the life of the church. The priesthood of all believers was never intended to protect “my truth,” but “our shared pursuit of God's truth.” What it opposes is not merely the concentration of power, but the temptation to replace Christ with ourselves.

Ultimately, the priesthood of all believers was never meant to produce a community of people determined to defend themselves. Its purpose is to cultivate a people who are willing to be shaped together by the Word of God.

Pastor Antony Lee

Notes

  1. Timothy George, Theology of the Reformers (Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 2013), 85–97.
  2. E. Y. Mullins, The Axioms of Religion (Philadelphia: Judson Press, 1908), 53–74.
  3. James Leo Garrett Jr., Baptist Theology: A Four-Century Study (Macon, GA: Mercer University Press, 2009), 169–188.
  4. Acts 15:1–29; see also Fisher Humphreys, The Way We Were: How Southern Baptists Lost Their Way and Found It Again (Macon: Smyth & Helwys, 2002), 61–75.
Originally written in Chinese.  
English translation assisted by ChatGPT.

《在起初的故事裡:重新學習作神的子民》- 《創世記》系列:第二十三篇:〈當亞伯拉罕開始老去,上主仍在路上引領〉

經文:創世記 24:1–67(新漢語譯本)
一、讀到第二十四章時,我們往往以為這只是一段婚姻故事

創世記第二十四章,是整卷《創世記》最長的一章。

然而,對不少讀者而言,它卻也是最容易被快速讀過的一章。因為整段內容看起來像一個十分傳統的家族故事:亞伯拉罕差派僕人返鄉,替以撒尋找妻子;僕人出發、禱告、遇見利百加,最後把她帶回迦南,而以撒也娶了她。

整章沒有洪水、烈火,也沒有摩利亞山那種令人震撼的張力;作者甚至還不斷重覆同一件事情,讓僕人把已經發生過的經過再講一次,讀起來似乎十分緩慢。

然而,若細心閱讀,便會發現作者之所以如此詳細記錄,正因為故事如今已經來到一個十分重要的時刻。¹

撒拉已經離世,亞伯拉罕也老了,而那位承載應許的以撒,如今仍然未有妻子。換句話說,若下一代沒有開始,神對亞伯拉罕所說的一切,便可能停在這裡。

因此,第二十四章真正關心的,其實不是婚姻本身,而是當亞伯拉罕開始慢慢退下時,神的故事將如何繼續向前。


二、亞伯拉罕真正擔心的,不只是以撒是否成婚

經文開首說:

「亞伯拉罕老了,已經上了年紀。上主在一切事上都祝福亞伯拉罕。」(創 24:1)

這句話帶着一種很特別的氣氛。因為故事走到這裡,亞伯拉罕一生許多重要事情似乎都已經完成了。他離開吾珥、進入迦南、生下以撒,也經歷過摩利亞山上的考驗;然而,即使如此,他仍然知道,有一件事情尚未完成。

於是,他吩咐家中管理一切的老僕人回到本地與親族那裡,替以撒尋找妻子,但特別強調:

「不可在我所居之地,從那些迦南女子中給我兒子娶妻。」(創 24:3)

更重要的是,他又再三提醒:

「決不可把我兒子帶回那裏。」(創 24:6)

這些要求看似只是婚姻安排,但背後其實關乎整個應許方向。²

因為《創世記》一直強調,神不是單單賜下一個兒子,而是在建立一條承載應許的世代線。因此,以撒的婚姻從來不只是個人幸福問題,而是關乎這條故事是否仍然留在神所呼召的方向裡。

尤其值得留意的是,亞伯拉罕寧願讓僕人長途返鄉,也不願讓以撒回到原來之地,因為他知道,一旦回頭,整個故事很可能便會慢慢停下來。


三、原來,上主很多時候是在路上引領

於是,那僕人帶着十匹駱駝與主人的財物離開,前往拿鶴的城。

到了傍晚,他停在城外的水井旁。那裡是女子出來打水的地方,也是一天開始慢慢安靜下來的時刻。

然後,經文記錄了一段十分動人的禱告:

「上主,我主人亞伯拉罕的神啊!求你今天讓我在我面前遇見她,向我主人亞伯拉罕施慈愛吧!」(創 24:12)

值得留意的是,僕人並沒有求神給他異象,也沒有要求看見甚麼超自然記號。他只是把自己正在面對的事情,十分具體地帶到神面前,並求神藉着一位願意主動替駱駝打水的女子,顯明祂的帶領。

而接下來,經文忽然說:

「他的話還沒說完,看啊,利百加出來了。」(創 24:15)

這句描寫十分安靜,卻很有力量。因為《創世記》讓人看見,神的工作很多時候並不是忽然翻天覆地地臨到,而是在人還未說完心裡的禱告之前,祂已經開始工作。³


四、僕人沒有立刻下結論,他只是默默觀看

利百加出現之後,經文用了不少篇幅描寫她的動作。

她「趕忙」把瓶子卸下來給僕人喝水,又「跑到井邊打水」,直到所有駱駝都喝夠。作者似乎刻意讓讀者看見,這女子不單外貌美麗,也帶着一種願意承擔、願意服侍別人的生命特質。

然而,更值得留意的,其實是僕人的反應。

經文說:

「那人注視着她,默不作聲,要知道上主讓不讓他的道路順利。」(創 24:21)

這句話很特別。因為即使事情似乎十分順利,僕人仍然沒有立刻下結論。他沒有急着宣告「神已經帶領」,而是安靜地觀看,慢慢辨認。

原來,信心有時並不是急着給答案,而是在事情之中,學習分辨神是否真的正在帶領。⁴

直到後來,他知道這女子正是亞伯拉罕親族的人時,才終於俯首敬拜:

「上主……在路上把我引領到我主人兄弟的家。」(創 24:27)

整章其實不斷重覆一個主題:上主在路上引領。而這種引領,很多時候並不是在人起步之前一次過把所有答案交出來,而是在人前行的過程裡,慢慢顯明。


五、利百加也開始走進一條她未曾走過的路

故事接下來忽然出現一個十分重要的問題。當僕人準備帶利百加離開時,她的哥哥與母親希望她多留幾天;於是,他們把利百加叫來,親自問她:

「你要跟這人一起去嗎?」(創 24:58)

而利百加只回答了一句:

「我去。」

這句話十分簡單,但其實承載了整章最重要的轉折。

因為利百加如今所做的事,某程度上正重演亞伯拉罕當年的呼召:離開熟悉的地方、本族與父家,前往一個自己仍未真正知道的未來。⁵

她並不知道迦南是怎樣的地方,也未曾見過以撒;然而,她仍然願意起行。

原來,《創世記》的故事從來不只是神對一個人的工作,而是一代又一代的人,在不同時代之中重新學習回應神的帶領。


六、故事最後,以撒開始慢慢走進下一代的位置

到了最後,利百加跟隨僕人回到南地。

經文說:

「將近傍晚時分,以撒出來,在田野默想。」(創 24:63)

這是一幅十分安靜的畫面。

以撒不像亞伯拉罕那樣經常主動行動,也不像雅各那樣充滿張力;然而,《創世記》卻在這裡讓讀者看見他另一種特質:安靜、沉思,以及在神面前停留。

就在那時,他舉目觀看,看見一隊駱駝慢慢而來;而利百加也舉目,看見了以撒。

之後,經文只是簡單記錄:

「以撒便娶了利百加為妻,並且愛她。」(創 24:67)

然後,作者再補上一句:

「自他母親死後,以撒這才得着安慰。」(創 24:67)

故事走到這裡,我們忽然發現,《創世記》的重心已經開始慢慢轉移。亞伯拉罕仍然活着,但下一代已經開始走進故事中央,而神的應許,也仍然繼續向前。


結語

創世記第二十四章,沒有驚天動地的神蹟,卻留下了一種十分深的安靜。

一位年老的亞伯拉罕開始慢慢退下;一位沒有名字的僕人在路上學習辨認神的帶領;一位年輕女子離開熟悉的地方,走向自己仍未知道的未來;而以撒,也終於開始承接下一代的位置。

原來,上主很多時候並不是忽然改變整個世界,而是在人的前行、等待、禱告與回應之中,安靜地把祂的故事一步一步帶向下一頁。

Antony 傳道


註腳

¹ Gordon J. Wenham, Genesis 16–50(WBC 2; Dallas: Word Books, 1994), 133–136。

² Bruce K. Waltke, Genesis: A Commentary(Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2001), 318–321。

³ Victor P. Hamilton, The Book of Genesis: Chapters 18–50(NICOT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995), 137–140。

⁴ Gerhard von Rad, Genesis: A Commentary(Philadelphia: Westminster Press, rev. ed., 1972), 251–255。

⁵ John Sailhamer, The Pentateuch as Narrative(Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1992), 191–193。

2026年6月6日星期六

《從浸信會傳統、歷史與神學重新思想教會》(4)- 為什麼浸信會裡,可以有這麼多不同的屬靈傳統?

完成前三篇之後,也許有人會產生一個自然的疑問。如果浸信會如此重視基督作教會的元首,如此強調群體共同辨識,也如此看重教會是一個門徒群體,那麼為什麼在實際歷史發展中,浸信會卻總是呈現出一種十分多元的面貌?


在不同地方、不同年代,甚至同一間教會裡,我們都可能遇見十分不同的浸信會信徒。有些人特別重視嚴謹的釋經與系統神學,有些人較著重靈修生活和內在生命;有些人十分關心宣教與福音工作,也有人更著重家庭牧養、社會關懷或敬拜更新。即使在華人浸信會的處境中,我們也不難發現,有人喜歡約翰.派博,有人喜歡盧雲;有人較受改革宗影響,也有人曾在靈恩或五旬節背景中成長。


這種現象有時甚至會令人產生疑問:究竟哪一種才是真正的浸信會?有趣的是,如果回顧浸信會四百多年的歷史,我們可能會發現,這個問題本身或許並不太符合浸信會的思維。


因為浸信會從來不是先由某一套完整而封閉的神學系統發展出來,再要求所有人按照同一個模式追求神。從十七世紀的普通浸信會(General Baptists)和特殊浸信會(Particular Baptists),到十八世紀的大覺醒運動、十九世紀的宣教運動和聖潔運動,再到二十世紀不同的神學和靈修傳統,浸信會歷史一直呈現出相當大的多樣性。某程度上,浸信會似乎從來都不是一個十分整齊的群體。¹


然而,這種多元並不一定代表浸信會缺乏身份,反而可能正好反映出浸信會神學本身的一種特質。


其中一個重要原因,正是「信徒皆祭司」


很多時候,當人們提起信徒皆祭司,首先想到的是人人都可以參與事奉,或者人人都可以發表意見。然而,在宗教改革和浸信會的理解中,信徒皆祭司首先意味著,每一位信徒都能直接來到基督面前,每一位信徒都能閱讀聖經、回應聖靈,也都需要親自向神負責。²


然而,這並不表示神會把所有人塑造成完全相同的樣子。恰恰相反,神往往透過不同的恩賜、經歷、背景、性格和呼召,在同一個身體中建立彼此需要的關係。正因如此,當每一位信徒都被邀請直接回應神的帶領時,多樣性某程度上便成為一種自然的結果。


這種多元並不是因為每一個人都有自己的真理,也不是因為信仰變成個人主義,而是因為同一位聖靈,會在不同的人身上產生不同的感動與負擔。有人較容易透過深入研究聖經來認識神,有人較容易在安靜和禱告中經歷神;有人對宣教充滿熱情,有人關心社會公義;有人特別著重家庭和下一代,也有人深受敬拜和靈修傳統吸引。


因此,多元並不是浸信會發展中的意外,而是信徒皆祭司所帶來的一種自然結果。


當然,這並不表示浸信會是一種「什麼都可以」的傳統。信徒皆祭司並不等於人人都有自己的真理,也不等於每一個人的看法都具有同樣權威。浸信會歷史上始終堅持一些共同的核心信念,包括聖經的權威、三一神、基督的救恩、教會生活以及大使命等等。不同的屬靈傳統和不同的神學強調,都是建立在這些共同基礎之上,而不是取代這些基礎。³


某程度上來說,成熟的群體並不是沒有差異的群體,而是懂得分辨哪些是核心,哪些是次要;哪些是必須共同持守的信念,哪些則可以容許不同的強調和實踐。


因此,真正的問題從來不是多元本身,而是如何讓不同的人一起生活。


事實上,大部分教會所面對的張力,並不是異端與正統之間的衝突,而是不同強調之間的差異。大家都愛主,也都願意服事神,只是所看重的事情不盡相同。有人重視釋經,有人重視靈修;有人重視宣教,有人重視家庭;有人重視敬拜,有人重視社會關懷。當這些不同的重點開始影響事工方向、資源分配和群體文化時,張力便自然產生。


也正因如此,帶領浸信會的人,很容易受到誘惑,希望透過統一來解決問題,希望把所有人塑造成相同的樣子,希望建立一套所有人都認同的文化。然而,浸信會的歷史似乎提醒我們,真正成熟的群體,不一定是沒有差異的群體,而是一個懂得如何在共同核心之下彼此尊重、彼此聆聽和彼此配搭的群體。


某程度上,領導浸信會最大的挑戰,或許不是如何消除多元,而是如何帶領多元。


而帶領多元,所需要的也不只是管理技巧,而是一種屬靈上的辨識能力。成熟的領袖需要學習分辨哪些事情涉及福音核心,哪些事情只是不同傳統之間的強調差異;需要幫助群體彼此聆聽,而不是急於彼此說服;也需要幫助不同恩賜的人看見,自己並不需要成為對方,卻仍然能夠彼此需要、彼此成全。因為真正的合一,並不等於一致。


真正的成熟,也不一定代表所有人喜歡同一位神學家、用同一種方式靈修,或擁有相同的屬靈氣質。


回顧浸信會的歷史,我愈來愈覺得,它最大的恩賜,從來不是讓所有人都變得一樣,而是在共同順服基督之下,學習如何讓不同的人一起成為基督的身體。


而這,也許正是今天每一位牧者、執事和領袖都需要重新學習的功課。


然而,當我們承認多元本身並不是問題時,另一個問題也隨之而來:既然浸信會本身一直存在不同的神學和屬靈傳統,那麼我們又應該如何看待教會歷史中其他更廣闊的屬靈傳統?我們是否只能留在自己的傳統之中,還是能夠在持守浸信會核心信念的同時,謙卑地向其他基督徒群體學習?


或許,這將是下一篇值得繼續思考的問題。


Antony傳道


註腳

  1. H. Leon McBeth, The Baptist Heritage: Four Centuries of Baptist Witness (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1987), 600–720.
  2. Timothy George, Theology of the Reformers (Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 2013), 85–97.
  3. James Leo Garrett Jr., Baptist Theology: A Four-Century Study (Macon: Mercer University Press, 2009), 169–188.

Rethinking the Church from Baptist Tradition, History and Theology

Part 4 — Unity Without Uniformity


Having completed the first three essays, one may naturally arrive at another question. If Baptists place such emphasis on Christ as the head of the church, value communal discernment, and understand the church primarily as a community of disciples, why has Baptist life throughout history exhibited such remarkable diversity?


Across different countries, different generations, and sometimes even within the same congregation, one encounters Baptists with strikingly different spiritual emphases. Some are deeply committed to careful biblical exposition and systematic theology, while others are particularly drawn to spiritual formation and the inner life. Some are passionate about missions and evangelism, whereas others devote themselves to family ministry, social engagement, or the renewal of worship. Even within the context of Chinese Baptist churches in Canada, such diversity is readily apparent. Some believers are profoundly shaped by John Piper, while others find themselves nourished by the writings of Henri Nouwen. Some have been influenced primarily by the Reformed tradition, while others have roots in charismatic or Pentecostal spirituality. Such realities sometimes give rise to an understandable question: Which of these truly represents the Baptist tradition?


Interestingly, a survey of four centuries of Baptist history suggests that the question itself may not entirely fit the Baptist way of thinking. Baptists did not emerge from a single, self-contained theological system that required everyone to pursue God in exactly the same manner. From the General Baptists and Particular Baptists of the seventeenth century, through the Great Awakening, the missionary movement, and the Holiness movement of the nineteenth century, to the diverse theological and spiritual traditions that have developed in more recent centuries, Baptist life has consistently displayed a remarkable degree of diversity. In this sense, Baptists have never been an especially uniform people.¹


Yet this diversity should not be mistaken for a lack of identity. On the contrary, it may reflect something intrinsic to Baptist theology itself.


One important reason lies in the doctrine of the priesthood of all believers. When Christians speak of this doctrine, they often think first of participation in ministry or the right of believers to express their opinions. Yet within both the Reformation and the Baptist tradition, the doctrine means something deeper. It affirms that every believer has direct access to Christ, that every believer may read Scripture and respond to the work of the Holy Spirit, and that each person must ultimately give an account before God.²


This does not mean, however, that God intends to shape every believer into the same mold. Quite the contrary. God often works through different gifts, experiences, personalities, backgrounds, and callings in order to establish relationships of mutual dependence within the body of Christ. Consequently, when believers are invited to respond personally to God's leading, a certain degree of diversity becomes almost inevitable.


Such diversity does not arise because each person possesses his or her own truth, nor because the Christian faith has become a form of individualism. Rather, it reflects the fact that the same Holy Spirit works in different people in different ways. Some believers come to know God most deeply through careful study of Scripture, while others encounter Him profoundly through silence and prayer. Some are burdened for missions and evangelism, whereas others are particularly sensitive to social justice and ministries of compassion. Some devote themselves to family formation and the next generation, while others are nourished by traditions of worship and spiritual formation. Diversity, therefore, should not be viewed as an accident within Baptist life, but as a natural consequence of taking the priesthood of all believers seriously.


Of course, this does not imply that the Baptist tradition embraces a theology of “anything goes.” The priesthood of all believers does not mean that everyone possesses his or her own truth, nor that every opinion carries equal authority. Throughout their history, Baptists have consistently affirmed a shared theological center, including the authority of Scripture, the Triune God, salvation through Jesus Christ, the life of the church, and the Great Commission. Different spiritual traditions and theological emphases are built upon these common foundations rather than replacing them.³ In this sense, mature communities are not communities without differences, but communities that have learned to distinguish between what is central and what is secondary, between convictions that must be held in common and practices that may legitimately vary.


For this reason, the real challenge has never been diversity itself, but learning how to live together amid diversity. In reality, many tensions within churches arise not from conflicts between orthodoxy and heresy, but from differences in emphasis among sincere believers. People love Christ and desire to serve Him faithfully, yet they often care deeply about different things. Some emphasize biblical exposition, while others emphasize spiritual formation. Some prioritize missions, while others devote themselves to family ministry. Some are passionate about worship, whereas others are concerned with social engagement. As these different priorities begin to influence ministry direction, resource allocation, and congregational culture, tensions naturally emerge.


It is precisely at this point that leaders within Baptist churches are often tempted to solve problems through uniformity. There is a natural tendency to assume that harmony can be achieved by making everyone think alike, value the same things, or embrace the same culture. Yet Baptist history suggests otherwise. A mature church is not necessarily one without differences, but one that has learned to live together under a shared center, practicing mutual respect, listening, and cooperation in the midst of legitimate diversity.


Perhaps one of the greatest challenges of leading a Baptist church is not learning how to eliminate diversity, but learning how to shepherd diversity well. Such leadership requires more than organizational skill; it requires spiritual discernment. Mature leaders learn to distinguish between issues that belong to the heart of the gospel and differences that merely reflect varying traditions and emphases. They help people listen to one another rather than rushing to persuade one another, and they encourage believers with different gifts to recognize that they need not become one another in order to serve one another.


True unity, therefore, is not the same thing as uniformity. Spiritual maturity does not require everyone to admire the same theologians, practice the same forms of devotion, or possess identical spiritual temperaments.


The more I reflect upon Baptist history, the more convinced I become that one of its greatest gifts has never been the ability to make everyone alike. Rather, its enduring gift lies in teaching believers how to become one body under Christ while remaining wonderfully different from one another. Perhaps this is one of the lessons that pastors, deacons, and ministry leaders in our own day need to learn again.


Yet once we recognize that diversity itself is not the problem, another question naturally arises. If Baptist life has always encompassed different theological and spiritual traditions, how should we relate to the wider traditions of the church throughout history? Are we called merely to remain within our own heritage, or can we hold firmly to Baptist convictions while learning humbly from other Christian communities?


Perhaps this is one of the next lessons we need to explore.


Pastor Antony Lee


Notes

  1. H. Leon McBeth, The Baptist Heritage: Four Centuries of Baptist Witness (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1987), 600–720.
  2. Timothy George, Theology of the Reformers (Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 2013), 85–97.
  3. James Leo Garrett Jr., Baptist Theology: A Four-Century Study (Macon: Mercer University Press, 2009), 169–188.


Originally written in Chinese.  

English translation assisted by ChatGPT.