一個世代正在退場
近年無論在香港、加拿大，甚至其他海外華人教會圈子裡，我愈來愈常聽見一個話題：接班。
這種憂慮並非毫無原因。過去數十年一直承擔華人教會重要牧養與領導責任的一批牧者，正陸續進入退休階段。許多曾經帶領教會走過建立、增長與發展歲月的牧者，開始思考交棒的問題。然而就在這個時候，華人教會又同時面對另一重挑戰。
香港近年的移民潮帶來不少人才流失，受薪教牧人數亦明顯下降。根據香港教會更新運動的資料，香港堂會的受薪教牧人數由2019年的4,252人下降至2024年的3,492人；沒有受薪堂主任的堂會比例，亦由2019年的11.3%上升至2024年的18.2%。更值得注意的是，在有受薪堂主任的堂會當中，計劃退休卻仍未有接班人的比例，由2019年的18.3%微升至2024年的19.4%，即接近五分之一。這些數字背後所反映的，不只是個別教會尋找牧者的困難，而是一個愈來愈實際的領導承接問題。¹
來到加拿大之後，我又看見另一種處境。這裡不少華人教會由第一代移民建立，第二代則在教會裡成長。然而隨著語言、文化與生活環境轉變，不少年輕一代的信仰生活逐漸以英語為主。從我這些年的觀察與交流中，中文堂所面對的問題未必只是「有沒有年輕基督徒」，而是下一代與中文堂之間的語言、文化和牧養距離愈來愈大。當原有一代的牧者、長執和事奉領袖逐漸年長，誰來承擔下一階段的牧養與領導，自然成為愈來愈實際的問題。
當我與不同牧者和領袖交流時，大家談論的處境雖然不盡相同，但最後總會回到一個問題：
未來誰來接棒？
接班真的只是今天的問題嗎？
表面上看，這是一個十分合理的問題。當主任牧師退休，總需要有人接替；當資深長執卸任，總需要有人承擔；當一個世代逐漸退場，教會自然需要思考未來。然而這些年在不同教會交流與牧養的過程中，我開始懷疑，我們面對的真的只是接班問題嗎？
當然，今天的困難不能全部歸因於教會過去沒有培育人。移民潮、受薪教牧人數下降、神學教育環境轉變，以及不同世代之間的語言與文化差異，都是個別堂會難以單獨改變的客觀因素。2021年的跟進研究顯示，在堂會認為未來需要重點加強的事工與培育之中，27%把「領袖培育」列為第一需要；若連同列為第二及第三需要的堂會，合共達56.4%。²
但每當聽見有人談論接班時，我心裡還是會浮現另一個問題：如果一間教會到了交棒的時候，忽然發現找不到合適的人選，那麼問題究竟只出現在今天，還是其中一部分早在十年、二十年前已經開始形成？
許多教會真正感受到接班壓力時，往往已經是退休臨近、同工離開、領袖不足或事工出現空缺的時候。到了這個階段，尋找合適的人當然十分重要，但教會也已經相當被動。因為一個能夠承擔牧養與領導責任的人，很少能夠在兩三年間突然形成。如果一間教會今天發現沒有人可以承接，除了外在環境的轉變，我們也需要回頭問：過去多年，我們有沒有持續培育人？
我們究竟在期待甚麼？
更值得思考的是，當我們說「沒有接班人」時，我們究竟在期待甚麼？
有時候，我們很容易期待在需要出現的時候，神會興起一位已經成熟的領袖，能夠很快承擔教會的重任。但一位能夠承擔使命的人，往往需要經過多年的塑造、陪伴、實踐和磨練，才慢慢成長起來。
如果我們把接班理解為出現空缺之後尋找合適的人，注意力自然會集中在「現在可以找誰」。但如果一個能夠承擔使命的人需要長時間被建立，那麼培育就不能等到空缺出現才開始，而應該成為教會平日生命的一部分。
聖經中的領袖如何被預備？
聖經中幾位重要的使命承接者，都讓我們看見類似的圖畫：他們並不是在需要承擔責任的最後一刻，才突然出現在故事之中。
約書亞早已在摩西身旁事奉，在曠野的歲月中與他同行，後來才正式承接帶領以色列的責任。提摩太也不是到了保羅晚年才突然成為同工；他曾與保羅同行，跟隨他的教導、生活方式、信心、忍耐與受苦。福音書所呈現的十二門徒，同樣是在耶穌公開事奉期間一直與祂同行，一面聆聽、一面觀察、一面參與，也曾被差遣出去服事，最後才領受使萬民作門徒的使命。³
以利亞與以利沙的故事也呈現另一幅圖畫。當以利亞在極度疲憊之中，神仍然吩咐他呼召以利沙；以利亞於是把外衣搭在以利沙身上，以利沙便離開原來的生活，跟隨並服事他。這段經文並不是一套現代意義下的接班計劃，卻同樣讓我們看見，使命的承接發生在一段同行的關係之中。
這些人物的處境並不相同，聖經也沒有把他們放進同一套「領袖培育模式」。但至少有一點值得留意：生命與使命的承接，很少只靠最後一刻的安排。很多時候，它早已發生在同行、觀察、服事、失敗、修正和再次承擔的過程之中。
保羅關心的不只是一位接班人
保羅在提摩太後書二章二節留下的教導，後來成為教會談論傳承時經常引用的經文：
「你在許多見證人面前聽見我所教訓的，也要交託那忠心能教導別人的人。」
細讀這段經文，保羅所關心的並不只是如何找到一個接替自己的人，而是所領受的福音如何繼續被交託下去：從保羅到提摩太，再到忠心而能教導別人的人，而這些人又繼續教導其他人。Mounce在討論這節經文時，也指出這種跨越多個層次的傳遞圖畫。⁴
Marshall和Payne在 The Trellis and the Vine 中，則以「棚架」（trellis）與「葡萄藤」（vine）作比喻來思考教會的事奉。他們並不是否定教會架構的價值；棚架有其作用，但它存在是為了支撐葡萄藤的生長。對教會而言，制度、活動和組織同樣重要，但它們應當服事建立門徒的工作，而不能讓維持架構本身取代建立人的使命。⁵
這正是接班問題背後一個更深的問題。制度可以安排誰在甚麼時候接任某個職位，卻不能在幾個月之內塑造一個成熟的生命。如果教會平日沒有持續建立人，到了需要交棒的時候，再完善的接班安排也有它的限制。
也許我們問錯了問題
這些年，我愈來愈覺得，今天許多教會所問的問題，需要再往前追問一步。
我們一直在問：誰來接下一棒？
但也許更值得問的是：過去二十年，我們是否一直在培育能夠接下一棒的人？
這兩個問題看似相近，方向卻很不一樣。一個問現在可以找誰，另一個問這些年我們怎樣建立人；一個通常在危機出現之後變得迫切，另一個卻需要在還看不見危機的時候，就已經開始耕耘。
眼前的接班困難，一部分來自這個時代正在發生的巨大轉變，另一部分卻可能早已在過去多年的培育中慢慢形成。所以在問「誰來接棒」之前，我想先問：
教會是否一直把培育下一代門徒與領袖，視為自己使命的一部分？
如果接班的困難往往不是在交棒那一天才開始，那麼下一個問題也就自然出現：為甚麼有些教會到了交棒的時候找不到人，有些教會卻似乎總有下一代領袖慢慢長出來？
Antony傳道
下一篇，我想從自己成長的教會開始，回頭看看一種我曾經以為十分平常、後來才發現並非理所當然的文化。
有些教會總有下一代領袖 - 我成長中看見的一種文化
註腳
¹ 香港教會更新運動「2024香港教會普查」的公開資料顯示，香港堂會受薪教牧人數由2019年的4,252人下降至2024年的3,492人；沒有受薪堂主任的堂會比例由2019年的11.3%上升至2024年的18.2%；在有受薪堂主任的堂會中，計劃退休但尚未有接班人的比例則由2019年的18.3%微升至2024年的19.4%。參香港教會更新運動，《2024香港教會普查》相關公開資料。
² 香港教會更新運動，《2021逆境中香港教會跟進研究》（香港：香港教會更新運動，2021）。相關公開資料顯示，在堂會認為未來需要重點加強的十四項事工／培育之中，27%把「領袖培育」列為第一需要；若連同列為第二及第三需要的堂會，合共為56.4%。
³ 出埃及記33:11；民數記27:18–23；申命記34:9；提摩太後書3:10–11；馬太福音4:18–22；10:1–8；28:18–20；列王紀上19:19–21。這些經文並不是要建立一套統一的現代「接班模式」：出埃及記與民數記讓我們看見約書亞早已在摩西身旁事奉，後來才正式受委任承擔帶領以色列的責任；提摩太後書回顧提摩太如何跟隨保羅的教導與生活；馬太福音呈現門徒從蒙召、同行、被差遣，到最後領受使命的歷程；列王紀上則記載以利亞遵照神的吩咐呼召以利沙，而不是說以利沙在當時已被正式「膏立」為接班人。
⁴ 提摩太後書2:2；William D. Mounce, Pastoral Epistles, Word Biblical Commentary 46 (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2000), 492–494。Mounce指出，這節經文呈現一個跨越多個層次的傳遞圖畫：保羅所教導的由提摩太領受，再交託給忠心而能教導別人的人，而這些人又會繼續教導其他人。本文由此所強調的，是所領受的福音與使命並不停止在一個人身上，而是繼續被交託下去。
⁵ Colin Marshall and Tony Payne, The Trellis and the Vine: The Ministry Mind-Shift That Changes Everything (Kingsford, NSW: Matthias Media, 2009), 13–24。Marshall與Payne並非否定教會架構的價值，而是以「棚架」與「葡萄藤」的比喻提醒教會：架構應當服事人的成長，而不應讓維持架構本身取代建立門徒的工作。
A Generation Is Stepping Back
In recent years, whether in Hong Kong, Canada, or other Chinese churches overseas, I have been hearing one subject discussed more and more often: succession.
The concern is understandable. A generation of pastors who have carried significant pastoral and leadership responsibilities in Chinese churches over the past several decades is gradually approaching retirement. Many of those who led churches through years of establishment, growth, and development are beginning to think about passing the baton. At the same time, Chinese churches are facing another challenge.
In Hong Kong, the recent wave of emigration has led to the loss of many people, while the number of paid pastoral staff has also declined significantly. According to the Hong Kong Church Renewal Movement, the number of paid pastoral staff in Hong Kong churches fell from 4,252 in 2019 to 3,492 in 2024. The proportion of churches without a paid senior pastor also rose from 11.3% in 2019 to 18.2% in 2024. More significantly, among churches with a paid senior pastor, the proportion whose senior pastor was planning to retire but who had not yet identified a successor rose slightly from 18.3% in 2019 to 19.4% in 2024—nearly one in five. These figures point to more than the difficulty faced by individual churches in finding pastors. They reveal an increasingly real challenge of leadership succession.¹
After coming to Canada, I began to see a different situation. Many Chinese churches here were established by first-generation immigrants, while the second generation grew up within those churches. Yet as language, culture, and the wider social environment have changed, the faith lives of many younger people have become increasingly English-speaking. From what I have observed and heard in conversations over the years, the challenge facing Chinese-speaking congregations is not simply whether there are younger Christians. There is also a growing linguistic, cultural, and pastoral distance between the next generation and Chinese-speaking congregations. As the pastors, lay leaders, and ministry leaders of an earlier generation grow older, the question of who will carry the pastoral and leadership responsibilities of the next stage becomes increasingly pressing.
When I speak with different pastors and leaders, the circumstances they describe are not always the same. Yet the conversation often returns to one question:
Who will take the baton next?
Is Succession Really Only a Problem of Today?
On the surface, this is a perfectly reasonable question. When a senior pastor retires, someone needs to take over. When experienced lay leaders step down, someone needs to carry the responsibility. When one generation gradually steps back, the church naturally has to think about what comes next. Yet through my conversations and ministry experience across different churches, I have begun to wonder whether what we are facing is really only a succession problem.
Of course, the difficulties churches face today cannot all be attributed to a failure to develop people in the past. Emigration, the decline in the number of paid pastoral staff, changes in theological education, and linguistic and cultural differences between generations are all objective factors that no individual church can resolve on its own. A 2021 follow-up study found that 27% of churches identified “leadership development” as their highest-priority area for future strengthening. When churches that ranked it second or third were included, the figure rose to 56.4%.²
Even so, whenever I hear people discussing succession, another question comes to mind: if a church reaches the point of handing over responsibility and suddenly discovers that there is no suitable person to take it on, did the problem really begin today, or had part of it already begun to take shape ten or twenty years earlier?
Many churches do not feel the pressure of succession until retirement is approaching, staff members are leaving, leaders are in short supply, or ministry positions are becoming vacant. At that point, finding the right people is obviously important, but the church is already in a rather reactive position. A person capable of carrying pastoral and leadership responsibility rarely emerges within two or three years. If a church discovers today that there is no one ready to carry things forward, then alongside the changes taking place around us, we also need to ask: Have we been consistently developing people over the years?
What Are We Actually Expecting?
There is another question worth considering. When we say, “There is no successor,” what exactly are we expecting?
At times, it is easy to hope that when the need arises, God will raise up a mature leader who can quickly carry the weight of the church. Yet a person capable of carrying a mission often needs years of formation, accompaniment, experience, and testing before gradually growing into that responsibility.
If we understand succession mainly as finding the right person once a vacancy appears, our attention will naturally focus on the question, “Who can we find now?” But if someone who can carry the mission needs to be formed over time, then developing people cannot begin only when a position becomes vacant. It has to be part of the ordinary life of the church.
How Are Leaders Prepared in Scripture?
Several important figures in Scripture who went on to carry forward a mission show us a similar picture: they did not suddenly appear in the story at the last moment, just when responsibility needed to be handed over.
Joshua had already served alongside Moses and walked with him through the wilderness years before he was formally entrusted with the responsibility of leading Israel. Timothy did not suddenly become Paul’s co-worker only in Paul’s later years; he had walked with Paul and followed his teaching, conduct, faith, patience, and suffering. The Gospels likewise portray the Twelve as walking with Jesus throughout His public ministry—listening, observing, participating, and being sent out to serve—before finally receiving the commission to make disciples of all nations.³
The story of Elijah and Elisha offers another picture. When Elijah was deeply exhausted, God still instructed him to call Elisha. Elijah placed his cloak over Elisha, and Elisha left his former life to follow and serve him. This passage is not presenting a modern succession plan, but it does show us a mission being handed on within a relationship of walking together.
These people lived in very different circumstances, and Scripture does not place them within a single model of “leadership development.” But there is at least one pattern worth noticing: the handing on of life and mission rarely depends only on arrangements made at the last moment. Very often, it has already been taking shape through walking together, observing, serving, failing, being corrected, and learning to carry responsibility again.
Paul Was Concerned with More Than Finding a Successor
Paul’s instruction in 2 Timothy 2:2 later became one of the passages most frequently cited when the church reflects on handing on what it has received:
“What you have heard from me in the presence of many witnesses entrust to faithful men, who will be able to teach others also.”
When we read the passage carefully, Paul’s concern is not simply how to find someone to replace him, but how the gospel that has been received can continue to be entrusted to others: from Paul to Timothy, then to faithful people who are able to teach others, who in turn will continue teaching others. In his discussion of this verse, Mounce also notes this pattern of transmission across several levels.⁴
Marshall and Payne, in The Trellis and the Vine, approach church ministry through the image of a trellis and a vine. They are not arguing that church structures have no value. A trellis has a purpose, but that purpose is to support the growth of the vine. In the same way, structures, programmes, and organization all have an important place in church life, but they should serve the work of developing disciples rather than allowing the maintenance of structures to replace the work of building people.⁵
This points to a deeper issue beneath the question of succession. A system can determine who takes up a particular position and when, but it cannot form a mature life within a few months. If a church has not been consistently building people, even the best succession arrangements will have their limits when the time comes to pass responsibility on.
Perhaps We Have Been Asking the Wrong Question
Over the years, I have increasingly felt that the question many churches are asking needs to be taken one step further.
We keep asking:
Who will take the baton next?
But perhaps the more important question is:
Over the past twenty years, have we been developing people who can take the baton?
The two questions may sound similar, but they point in different directions. One asks whom we can find now; the other asks how we have been building people over the years. One usually becomes urgent only after a crisis appears; the other requires us to begin cultivating long before we can see the crisis coming.
The succession difficulties before us are partly the result of significant changes taking place in our time. But another part may have been slowly taking shape through the way we have—or have not—developed people over many years. So before asking, “Who will take the baton?” I want to ask another question first:
Has the church consistently regarded the development of the next generation of disciples and leaders as part of its mission?
If succession difficulties often begin long before the day the baton is handed over, then another question naturally follows: Why do some churches reach the point of transition and find no one ready to take responsibility, while other churches seem always to have another generation of leaders gradually emerging?
Pastor Antony
Coming Next
In the next article, I want to begin with the church in which I grew up and look back at a culture I once assumed was quite ordinary, only to discover later that it was not something to be taken for granted.
Some Churches Always Seem to Have Another Generation of Leaders
A Culture I Witnessed While Growing Up
Notes
¹ Public data from the Hong Kong Church Renewal Movement’s 2024 Hong Kong Church Census indicate that the number of paid pastoral staff in Hong Kong churches fell from 4,252 in 2019 to 3,492 in 2024. The proportion of churches without a paid senior pastor rose from 11.3% in 2019 to 18.2% in 2024. Among churches with a paid senior pastor, the proportion whose senior pastor was planning to retire but who had not yet identified a successor rose slightly from 18.3% in 2019 to 19.4% in 2024. See the Hong Kong Church Renewal Movement’s publicly released materials related to the 2024 Hong Kong Church Census.
² Hong Kong Church Renewal Movement, 2021 Follow-up Study of Hong Kong Churches in Adversity (Hong Kong: Hong Kong Church Renewal Movement, 2021). Publicly released data from the study indicate that, among fourteen areas of ministry or development that churches believed needed strengthening, 27% identified “leadership development” as their first priority. When churches ranking it second or third were included, the figure reached 56.4%.
³ Exodus 33:11; Numbers 27:18–23; Deuteronomy 34:9; 2 Timothy 3:10–11; Matthew 4:18–22; 10:1–8; 28:18–20; 1 Kings 19:19–21. These passages are not intended to establish a single modern “succession model.” Exodus and Numbers show that Joshua had already served alongside Moses before he was formally commissioned to lead Israel. Second Timothy looks back on Timothy’s following of Paul’s teaching and way of life. Matthew traces the disciples from their calling, through walking with Jesus and being sent out, to their final commission. First Kings records Elijah calling Elisha in obedience to God’s instruction; it does not say that Elisha was formally “anointed” as Elijah’s successor at that point.
⁴ 2 Timothy 2:2; William D. Mounce, Pastoral Epistles, Word Biblical Commentary 46 (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2000), 492–494. Mounce notes that the verse presents a pattern of transmission across several levels: what Paul taught was received by Timothy, entrusted to faithful people who were able to teach others, and through them continued to others. The point emphasized here is that the gospel and mission received do not end with one person but continue to be entrusted to others.
⁵ Colin Marshall and Tony Payne, The Trellis and the Vine: The Ministry Mind-Shift That Changes Everything (Kingsford, NSW: Matthias Media, 2009), 13–24. Marshall and Payne do not dismiss the value of church structures. Rather, through the image of the trellis and the vine, they argue that structures should serve the growth of people and should not allow the maintenance of the structure itself to replace the work of developing disciples.
沒有留言 :
發佈留言