《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？》 

《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）》（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.

《從浸信會傳統、歷史與神學重新思想教會（實踐篇）》（8）為什麼重要的事情需要慢下來？ —當效率遇上共同辨識

如果說，前面七篇文章主要是在回顧浸信會的歷史與神學，那麼從這一篇開始，我更希望把目光慢慢帶回今天的教會現場。當我們重新理解浸信會所珍惜的信念之後，一個十分實際的問題便自然浮現：今天的教會，又可以如何活出這些信念？而我想，第一個值得重新思想的問題，也許十分簡單，卻也是這個時代最不容易回答的問題：為什麼重要的事情，需要慢下來？

對生活在現代社會的人來說，這似乎是一個有些奇怪的問題。因為我們從小所接受的訓練，大多是如何更有效率、更快速地解決問題。我們習慣以速度來衡量能力，以成果來衡量價值。企業如此，社會如此，甚至很多時候，教會也不知不覺採用了同樣的思維。因此，當教會面對問題時，我們很自然會問：「最快的方法是什麼？」「怎樣才能盡快形成共識？」「怎樣才能減少阻力？」「怎樣才能更有效率地推動事情？」這些問題本身並沒有錯。事實上，好的管理、清晰的制度和有效的行政，本來就是神所賜予教會的恩典。然而，回顧教會歷史，我愈來愈發現，一些真正重要的事情，往往不能只用效率來衡量。

因為有些事情，本身就需要時間。人與人的信任需要時間，跨代關係需要時間，門徒生命的形成需要時間，領袖的培育需要時間，而群體形成共識、學習一起聆聽神，更需要時間。或許正因如此，聖經裡許多重要的工作，似乎都比我們想像中慢得多。亞伯拉罕等候應許，摩西在曠野四十年，大衛經歷漫長的逃亡歲月，耶穌在公開服事之前用了三十年預備自己，然後又花了三年的時間與十二位門徒同行。初代教會在面對外邦信徒的爭議時，也沒有急於用權威壓下不同聲音，而是在辯論、見證、禱告和聆聽之中，慢慢形成共識，最後才說出：「聖靈和我們定意。」（徒十五28）¹

其實，《使徒行傳》第十五章並沒有留給我們一套快速解決衝突的方法。相反，它所描繪的，是一群人在張力之中學習等待，在差異之中學習聆聽，在不確定之中學習相信神仍然帶領祂的教會。因此，共同辨識本身，其實是一種十分緩慢的工作。這也意味著，成熟並不一定等於速度。很多時候，我們以為成熟的領袖，就是能夠快速作出決定的人；成熟的教會，就是能夠有效推動事情的教會。然而，浸信會的歷史似乎提醒我們，真正成熟的群體，不一定是最快形成共識的群體，而是一個願意花時間一起尋求神的群體。

這也讓我想起 Stephen Covey 在《First Things First》裡的一個提醒。他指出，真正重要的事情，往往不是最緊急的事情，而最緊急的事情，也不一定是最重要的事情。² 有趣的是，這個現象在教會裡也經常出現。我們花很多時間處理冷氣故障、聚餐安排、活動流程、財政細節、場地問題和行政工作，因為這些事情十分緊急，也需要被處理。然而，真正影響教會未來的事情，例如下一代承接、家庭牧養、跨代關係、領袖培育、門徒形成和群體文化，卻往往屬於「重要但不緊急」的事情。正因為它們不會立刻演變成危機，所以也最容易被忽略。

可惜的是，今天許多教會最大的危險，或許並不是走得太慢，而是太容易用處理急事的方法，去處理重要的事。我們很容易在還沒有真正一起禱告之前，便急於形成方案；在還沒有一起查考聖經之前，便急於作出決定；在還沒有真正聆聽不同聲音之前，便急於追求一致。久而久之，我們可能愈來愈擅長管理事情，卻愈來愈不懂得等待；愈來愈熟悉如何推動事工，卻愈來愈不熟悉如何一起尋求神。

當然，這並不表示所有事情都需要放慢。有些事情屬於管理層面，需要效率。例如危機處理、日常行政和各種例行運作，很多時候都需要快速回應。然而，有些事情則屬於方向層面，需要辨識。前者可以快速決定，後者卻需要共同尋求。若把兩者混為一談，很容易讓教會在效率之中失去深度。

因此，慢下來並不只是抽象的屬靈原則，它其實也可以有一些十分具體的實踐。例如，在涉及教會未來方向、架構改革、事工文化和下一代承接等重大議題時，也許不需要在同一次會議中完成所有討論，而是容許群體經歷探索、聆聽、禱告和形成共識的過程；也許在重大決策之前，可以先有查經和禱告，而不只是報告、討論和投票；也許當面對不同聲音時，不急於立即得到答案，而是給群體留下一段共同尋求神的時間。

甚至，在一些執事會或領袖會議裡，第一次討論某些重要議題時，也許不需要立即形成方案，而是先一起閱讀相關經文，分享彼此所看見的重點，並且為教會禱告；真正的討論，則留待下一次會議。從管理學的角度來看，這樣做似乎缺乏效率；然而，從共同辨識的角度來看，這或許正是在為群體留下空間，讓神的話語先塑造人，然後才塑造決定。

這種做法其實並不容易。因為等待會令人焦慮，慢下來也可能被誤解為缺乏果斷。Eugene Peterson 在《The Contemplative Pastor》裡提醒牧者，忙碌不一定代表忠心，速度也不一定代表成熟。³ 而在《A Long Obedience in the Same Direction》裡，他更提醒我們，真正的屬靈生命，往往是一條漫長而持久的道路，而不是一連串快速完成的成果。⁴

同樣地，John Kotter 在研究組織轉型時也發現，真正能夠帶來深層改變的，往往不是少數人快速推動，而是整個群體慢慢建立共同的理解、信任和方向。⁵ 對教會而言，這一點尤其重要。因為教會的更新，不只是結構的改變，更是人的改變；不只是方案的更新，更是群體文化的形成。而這些事情，本來就無法被加速。

或許正因如此，我愈來愈覺得，今天教會真正需要思考的問題，未必是如何走得更快，而是如何走得更深。因為深度，本身便需要時間；而許多真正重要的事情，也只有在時間裡，才能慢慢成熟。

因此，在一個愈來愈急速的時代，「慢下來」或許並不是落後，相反，它可能是一種十分罕有的信心表現。因為當我們願意慢下來時，我們其實是在承認：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，而是在群體共同尋求之中，慢慢被看見。

因此，或許最值得帶回自己處境的，不是一個現成的答案，而是一個值得長久思想的問題：

在我們的教會裡，有哪些真正重要的事情，其實值得我們慢下來，一起尋求神？

Antony傳道

---

註腳

1. 《使徒行傳》15:1–29。
2. Stephen R. Covey, First Things First (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1994), 29–55.
3. Eugene H. Peterson, The Contemplative Pastor: Returning to the Art of Spiritual Direction (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1989), 1–17.
4. Eugene H. Peterson, A Long Obedience in the Same Direction (Downers Grove: IVP, 2000).
5. John P. Kotter, Leading Change (Boston: Harvard Business Review Press, 2012), 3–19.

---

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

Part 8 - Why Do Important Things Need to Slow Down?

When Efficiency Meets Communal Discernment

If the first seven articles primarily looked back at Baptist history and theology, then from this point onward I hope to bring our attention gradually back to the life of the church today. Once we have rediscovered the convictions that Baptists have long cherished, a very practical question naturally emerges: How can churches today embody these convictions in their own contexts? And perhaps the first question worth reconsidering is both simple and surprisingly difficult for our age to answer:

Why do important things need to slow down?

To those of us living in the modern world, this may seem like a rather strange question. From an early age, most of us have been trained to solve problems more efficiently and more quickly. We are accustomed to measuring competence by speed and value by results. Businesses operate this way. Society operates this way. And many churches, often without realizing it, have adopted the same mindset. As a result, when difficulties arise, we instinctively ask: What is the fastest solution? How can we reach consensus as quickly as possible? How can resistance be minimized? How can things move more efficiently? None of these questions are inherently wrong. Good management, clear structures, and effective administration are all gifts from God. Yet as I look back over church history, I have become increasingly convinced that some of the most important things cannot be measured by efficiency alone.

For some things simply require time. Trust between people requires time. Intergenerational relationships require time. The formation of disciples requires time. The development of leaders requires time. And a community learning to seek God together and arrive at shared discernment requires even more time. Perhaps this is why so many of God’s important works in Scripture unfold far more slowly than we might expect. Abraham waited for the promise. Moses spent forty years in the wilderness. David endured years of exile and uncertainty. Jesus spent thirty years preparing before beginning His public ministry, and then devoted another three years to walking alongside twelve disciples. Likewise, when the early church faced controversy regarding Gentile believers, it did not rush to silence opposing voices through authority. Rather, through debate, testimony, prayer, and listening, the community slowly reached a common understanding and was finally able to declare, “It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us” (Acts 15:28).¹

In fact, Acts 15 does not leave us with a technique for resolving conflict quickly. Instead, it portrays a community learning to wait in the midst of tension, learning to listen amid differences, and learning to trust that God still leads His church even in uncertainty. Communal discernment itself is therefore a slow work. And this means that maturity is not necessarily the same thing as speed. We often assume that mature leaders are those who make decisions quickly, and that mature churches are those that move things along efficiently. Yet Baptist history seems to suggest otherwise. A mature community is not necessarily the one that reaches agreement the fastest, but the one that is willing to spend time seeking God together.

This brings to mind Stephen Covey’s observation in First Things First. He argues that what is truly important is often not what is most urgent, and what is most urgent is not always what is most important.² Interestingly, this dynamic is frequently found in churches as well. We spend countless hours dealing with broken air-conditioning systems, fellowship meal arrangements, event logistics, financial details, building concerns, and administrative tasks. These matters are urgent and certainly need attention. Yet the things that will shape the future of the church—such as intergenerational relationships, family discipleship, leadership development, the formation of disciples, and the cultivation of community—often belong to the category of “important but not urgent.” And precisely because they do not immediately become crises, they are often neglected.

Perhaps the greatest danger facing many churches today is not that they are moving too slowly, but that they are using the methods designed for urgent matters to address things that are truly important. We rush to develop plans before we have genuinely prayed together. We hurry to make decisions before we have searched the Scriptures together. We seek agreement before we have really listened to differing voices. Over time, we may become increasingly skilled at managing things, yet increasingly unfamiliar with waiting. We may become highly capable of running ministries, yet less and less accustomed to seeking God together.

Of course, this does not mean that everything should be slowed down. Some matters belong to the realm of management and require efficiency. Crisis response, daily administration, and routine operations often demand timely action. Yet other matters belong to the realm of direction and require discernment. The former may be handled quickly; the latter must be sought together. When the two are confused, churches easily sacrifice depth for efficiency.

Slowing down, therefore, is not merely an abstract spiritual principle. It can take very practical forms. When dealing with major questions concerning the future direction of the church, structural changes, ministry culture, or the passing of faith to the next generation, perhaps not every discussion needs to be completed within a single meeting. Perhaps communities need space to explore, listen, pray, and gradually arrive at consensus. Perhaps before making significant decisions, there should first be Scripture reading and prayer, rather than simply reports, discussions, and voting. And perhaps when differing voices arise, the goal should not be to obtain immediate answers, but to leave room for the community to seek God together.

In some deacons’ meetings or leadership gatherings, it may even mean that the first meeting concerning an important issue is not devoted to forming a proposal at all. Instead, the group may begin by reading relevant passages of Scripture, sharing what each person senses God may be saying, and praying for the church together. The actual deliberation can wait until the next meeting. From a managerial perspective, this may appear inefficient. Yet from the perspective of communal discernment, it may be precisely what allows God’s Word to shape people before it shapes decisions.

Such a way of proceeding is not easy. Waiting creates anxiety, and slowing down can easily be mistaken for indecisiveness. Eugene Peterson reminds pastors in The Contemplative Pastor that busyness does not necessarily equal faithfulness, and speed does not necessarily indicate maturity.³ In A Long Obedience in the Same Direction, he further reminds us that the spiritual life is usually a long and steady journey rather than a series of rapidly completed achievements.⁴

Similarly, John Kotter’s research on organizational change suggests that deep transformation rarely comes through a few individuals pushing change quickly. Rather, it emerges as an entire community gradually develops shared understanding, trust, and direction.⁵ This insight is especially important for the church. For renewal in the church is not merely about changing structures; it is about changing people. It is not merely about implementing new plans; it is about forming a new culture. And these things cannot be accelerated.

Perhaps for this reason, I have become increasingly convinced that the question churches most need to ask today is not how to move faster, but how to go deeper. For depth itself requires time, and many things that truly matter can mature only through the passing of time.

In an increasingly hurried world, slowing down may not be a sign of falling behind. On the contrary, it may be a rare expression of faith. For when we choose to slow down, we are acknowledging that the true owner of the church is not ourselves, but Christ. And we are confessing that the direction of the church is not formed merely by human wisdom and experience, but gradually revealed as God’s people seek Him together.

Therefore, perhaps the most important thing to take back into our own contexts is not a ready-made answer, but a question worthy of lifelong reflection:

In our churches, what truly important things are worth slowing down for, so that together we may seek God?

Pastor Antony

---

Notes

1. Acts 15:1–29.
2. Stephen R. Covey, First Things First (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1994), 29–55.
3. Eugene H. Peterson, The Contemplative Pastor: Returning to the Art of Spiritual Direction (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1989), 1–17.
4. Eugene H. Peterson, A Long Obedience in the Same Direction (Downers Grove: IVP, 2000).
5. John P. Kotter, Leading Change (Boston: Harvard Business Review Press, 2012), 3–19.

Originally written in Chinese.  

English translation assisted by ChatGPT.

《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.

《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.

《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。⁴

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傳道

---

註腳

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.