回顧自己的信仰歷程，我有相當長的時間是在浸信會中成長。從初信、受浸到參與事奉，我主要是在浸信會背景的母會中學習信仰。後來進入中國宣道神學院接受神學裝備，由於學院本身屬於跨宗派背景，我開始接觸不同教會傳統對教會、牧養和領導的理解。畢業之後，我又曾在五旬節宗派的教會中服事，因此也有機會從另一個角度觀察教會如何運作、如何作決定，以及如何帶領群體前行。
正因如此，這些年來，當我重新回頭思考浸信會時，我愈來愈覺得，許多人對浸信會的印象雖然真實，卻未必觸及問題的核心。每當談到浸信會，總會聽見一些十分熟悉的評語：會議很多、程序很多、討論很多，任何事情似乎都需要經過漫長的過程才能作出決定。有時候，當教會面對新的挑戰，或者希望推動新的方向時，我自己也經常有着同樣的疑問：如果程序少一點，是否會更有效率？如果決策集中一點，是否能夠走得更快？
然而，隨著服事年日增加，我開始慢慢覺得，也許問題不一定在於浸信會太慢，而是在於我們究竟如何理解教會的領導設計。
今天無論是企業、政府、學校，甚至不少教會，我們都很容易把領導理解為制定方向、推動改革、作出決定和管理組織。一位好的領袖，往往被認為是看得比別人遠、想得比別人快、能夠整合資源，也有能力帶領組織達成目標。這種理解本身並沒有錯。事實上，教會也需要策略、規劃、行政和執行能力。然而，當我們把這種模式完全套用到教會身上時，可能會忽略一個更根本的問題：教會究竟是一個什麼樣的群體？
如果教會只是一個組織，那麼領導最重要的工作自然是提高效率、整合資源和達成目標。但如果教會是基督的身體，那麼領導最重要的工作便不只是管理事情，而是幫助群體一起回應基督的帶領。這也是我愈來愈覺得值得重新思考的地方。很多時候，我們討論浸信會的制度，討論會友大會、執事會、委員會和投票機制，卻很少回頭問一個更根本的問題：當初設計這些制度的人，究竟想保護什麼？
如果回到十七世紀浸信會形成的歷史背景，我們會發現，早期浸信會最關心的問題其實並不是誰應該擁有權力，也不是哪一種治理架構最有效率。他們真正關心的是另一個問題：教會究竟屬於誰。¹
這個問題在今天看來似乎理所當然。我們都知道教會屬於基督。然而在當時的歐洲，這其實是一個帶有巨大張力的問題。那是一個國家教會盛行的年代，教會與政治權力緊密結合，宗教權柄往往掌握在少數人手中。對許多人來說，信仰不只是個人的事情，更是一種社會身份。因此，當早期浸信會和重洗派開始強調真正的教會應該由願意跟隨基督的人所組成時，他們其實正在挑戰整個既有的宗教秩序。²
對他們而言，最重要的問題不是如何建立一個更有效率的教會，而是如何確保教會始終屬於基督，而不是屬於任何人。正因如此，浸信會歷史上一直十分強調基督是教會唯一的元首。這不只是一句神學口號，而是整套治理思想的起點。因為如果教會真正屬於基督，那麼所有領導者都只是受託者，而不是擁有者；所有制度都只是工具，而不是最終權威；所有決定都應該服從於一個更高的目標，就是尋求基督的心意。³
也正是在這個背景下，我們才能理解為什麼宗教改革提出的「信徒皆祭司」對浸信會如此重要。很多時候，我們把信徒皆祭司理解成一種民主精神，認為它的意思是人人都可以發表意見，人人都有參與決策的權利。然而，這其實只是後來的延伸。最初的重點並不在於投票權，而在於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、尋求神的帶領，並對自己的信仰負責。⁴
這個觀念所帶來的影響遠比我們想像中深遠。因為當每一位信徒都能直接回應神時，教會便不能只依靠少數人尋求神的心意。牧者需要尋求神，執事需要尋求神，會眾同樣需要尋求神。於是，教會的方向便不再只是由少數領袖決定，而是在整個群體共同尋求神的過程中逐漸形成。這也是後來浸信會會眾治理（Congregational Government）形成的重要神學基礎。⁵
這也是為什麼我愈來愈覺得，浸信會對領導的理解，與現代組織管理有著本質上的不同。現代組織往往強調決策能力，但浸信會更強調辨識能力。現代組織重視誰最有能力提出答案，但浸信會更關心整個群體是否一起尋求神的答案。現代組織追求的是決策效率，但浸信會歷史上更重視共同辨識（Communal Discernment）的過程。⁶
當然，這並不代表浸信會反對領導，也不代表所有事情都必須無限討論。事實上，浸信會歷史上一直有牧者、執事和不同形式的領導團隊。然而，這些領導職分存在的目的，不是取代群體尋求神，而是幫助群體更好地尋求神。換句話說，領導者的角色並不是站在群體前面告訴大家答案，而是站在群體當中，引導大家一起分辨神的帶領。
這樣的理解，也許能幫助我們重新思考今天教會所面對的一些挑戰。在一個講求效率和成果的時代，我們很容易把領導成功與否建立在事工增長、制度完善或行政效率之上。這些事情固然重要，但如果浸信會歷史提醒我們什麼的話，那麼它提醒我們：真正重要的問題或許不是教會運作得有多快，而是教會是否仍然在尋求基督的帶領。
因此，今天值得我們反思的，也許不是浸信會制度是否過時，而是我們是否仍然記得這些制度原本想保護什麼。我們最重視的是決策效率，還是群體辨識？我們最關心的是事情能否快速推進，還是教會能否一起尋求神的心意？我們是否不知不覺把領導理解成權力和管理，卻忘記了浸信會最初所關心的，是教會如何持續順服基督的帶領？
回顧浸信會歷史，我愈來愈覺得，浸信會最初想保護的，從來不是某一套治理架構，也不是某一種投票程序。它真正想保護的，是一個信念：教會屬於基督。因此，真正的領導，不是替教會決定未來，而是幫助教會持續學習順服基督的帶領。
而這或許也是今天每一位牧者、執事、事工領袖都值得重新思考的問題：當我們帶領教會時，我們究竟是在帶領群體跟隨自己的方向，還是在幫助群體一起尋求基督的方向？如果浸信會歷史留給我們什麼重要的提醒，也許正是這一句：領導最終不是關於權力，而是關於順服；不是關於誰作決定，而是關於整個教會如何一起跟隨基督。
Antony傳道
註腳
1. H. Leon McBeth, The Baptist Heritage: Four Centuries of Baptist Witness (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1987), 35–57.
2. Timothy George, Theology of the Reformers (Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 2013), 255–307；另參 McBeth, The Baptist Heritage, 19–34.
3. The Baptist Faith and Message (2000), Article VI: “The Church”；另參 Fisher Humphreys, The Way We Were (Macon: Smyth & Helwys, 2002), 45–60.
4. Timothy George, Theology of the Reformers, 85–97.
5. H. Leon McBeth, The Baptist Heritage, 58–74.
6. Ruth Haley Barton, Pursuing God's Will Together: A Discernment Practice for Leadership Groups (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2012), 21–44.
Rethinking the Church from Baptist Tradition, History and Theology
Part 1 — What Are Baptists Trying to Protect? A Reflection on Leadership
Looking back on my own spiritual journey, I realize that much of my formation has taken place within the Baptist tradition. From my early years as a believer, through baptism and involvement in ministry, I learned the Christian faith primarily within my home church, which belonged to the Baptist family. Later, my theological training at the China Alliance Seminary exposed me to a broader range of ecclesial traditions. Because the seminary itself was interdenominational, I encountered different ways of understanding the church, pastoral ministry, and leadership. After graduation, I also had the opportunity to serve in a Pentecostal congregation, which allowed me to observe church life, decision-making, and leadership from yet another perspective.
Perhaps for this reason, as I have revisited Baptist history and theology over the years, I have increasingly felt that many common impressions of Baptist churches, while not entirely inaccurate, often fail to address the deeper issues involved.
Whenever Baptists are discussed, familiar comments inevitably arise: too many meetings, too many procedures, too much discussion. Decisions often seem to require lengthy deliberation before anything can move forward. When churches face new challenges or seek to pursue fresh directions, I have often found myself asking the same questions. Would things be more efficient if there were fewer procedures? Would the church move faster if decision-making were more centralized?
Yet as the years of ministry have accumulated, I have slowly come to wonder whether the problem is not that Baptists are inherently too slow, but rather that we have misunderstood the very nature of church leadership.
In contemporary society—whether in business, government, education, or even many churches—leadership is commonly understood in terms of setting direction, implementing change, making decisions, and managing organizations. Good leaders are expected to see further than others, think more quickly, mobilize resources effectively, and guide institutions toward their goals. There is nothing inherently wrong with such expectations. Churches, too, require strategy, planning, administration, and competent execution.
But when this organizational model is applied wholesale to the church, we may overlook a more fundamental question: What kind of community is the church?
If the church is merely an organization, then leadership naturally centers on efficiency, resource management, and the achievement of objectives. But if the church is the body of Christ, then leadership involves something far deeper than managing affairs. It means helping God's people respond together to the leadership of Christ Himself.
This, I believe, is where renewed reflection is needed. We often debate Baptist structures—church conferences, deacons' meetings, committees, and voting procedures—yet seldom step back to ask a more basic question:
What were these structures originally intended to protect?
When we return to the seventeenth-century context in which the Baptist movement emerged, we discover that early Baptists were not primarily concerned with who should possess power, nor with identifying the most efficient form of church government. Their deepest concern was something more fundamental:
"To whom does the church belong?" ¹
Today, that question may seem almost self-evident. Christians readily affirm that the church belongs to Christ. Yet in early modern Europe, this was a profoundly contested issue. State churches dominated the religious landscape, ecclesiastical authority was closely intertwined with political power, and religious identity was often inseparable from social identity. Consequently, when early Baptists and Anabaptists insisted that the true church should consist of those who consciously and willingly followed Christ, they were challenging the prevailing religious order itself.²
For them, the primary issue was not how to build a more efficient church, but how to ensure that the church would always remain Christ's and never become the possession of any human authority.
This explains why Baptists have historically emphasized that Christ alone is the head of the church. This conviction is far more than a theological slogan; it serves as the foundation of Baptist ecclesiology. If the church truly belongs to Christ, then leaders are stewards rather than owners, structures are instruments rather than ultimate authorities, and every decision must be subordinated to the higher task of seeking the mind of Christ.³
It is within this framework that we can also understand why the Reformation doctrine of the priesthood of all believers became so significant to Baptists. Too often, this doctrine is interpreted chiefly in democratic terms, as though its primary meaning were that everyone has a right to express opinions or participate in decision-making. Such ideas may be legitimate implications, but they are not the doctrine's original emphasis.
At its heart, the priesthood of all believers affirms that every Christian has direct access to Christ, may read and interpret Scripture responsibly, seek God's guidance, and bear personal responsibility for his or her faith.⁴
The implications of this principle are more far-reaching than we sometimes recognize. If every believer is called to respond directly to God, then the church cannot depend upon a select few to discern His will. Pastors must seek God. Deacons must seek God. The congregation itself must seek God. Consequently, the direction of the church is not simply imposed by a small group of leaders but gradually emerges through the shared process of seeking God together.
This became one of the theological foundations for congregational polity within the Baptist tradition.⁵
Increasingly, I have come to believe that the Baptist understanding of leadership differs fundamentally from the assumptions of modern organizational theory. Modern institutions tend to emphasize decisiveness; Baptists have historically emphasized discernment. Modern organizations often focus on identifying who possesses the best answers; Baptists are more concerned with whether the entire community is seeking God's answer together. Modern leadership prizes efficiency in decision-making, whereas Baptist life has traditionally placed greater value on the process of communal discernment.⁶
Of course, this does not mean that Baptists oppose leadership, nor does it imply that every issue requires endless discussion. Throughout Baptist history, churches have always recognized pastors, deacons, and various forms of leadership teams. Yet these offices exist not to replace the congregation's pursuit of God, but to assist the congregation in that pursuit.
In other words, leaders are not called to stand over the church and provide all the answers. Rather, they stand within the community, guiding God's people as they discern together the leading of Christ.
Such an understanding may help us reconsider some of the challenges facing churches today. In a culture preoccupied with efficiency and measurable results, it is easy to evaluate leadership primarily in terms of numerical growth, organizational effectiveness, or administrative competence. These concerns are certainly important. Yet if Baptist history teaches us anything, it is that the most important question may not be how quickly a church moves, but whether it continues to seek the leadership of Christ.
Perhaps, then, the question before us is not whether Baptist structures have become outdated, but whether we still remember what those structures were originally designed to protect.
Do we value efficiency above communal discernment?
Are we primarily concerned with moving things forward quickly, or with seeking God's will together?
Have we unconsciously come to equate leadership with power and management, forgetting that the earliest Baptists were fundamentally concerned with preserving the church's obedience to Christ?
The more I study Baptist history, the more convinced I become that Baptists never sought merely to preserve a particular system of governance or a specific voting procedure. What they sought to preserve was a conviction:
The church belongs to Christ.
Therefore, authentic leadership is not ultimately about determining the church's future; it is about helping the church continually learn to submit itself to the leadership of Christ.
Perhaps this is a question worth revisiting for every pastor, deacon, church board member, and ministry leader today:
When we lead the church, are we leading people toward our own vision, or are we helping God's people seek Christ's direction together?
If Baptist history leaves us with one enduring reminder, perhaps it is this:
Leadership is ultimately not about power, but about submission; not about who makes the decisions, but about how the whole church learns to follow Christ together.
Pastor Antony
Notes：
1. H. Leon McBeth, The Baptist Heritage: Four Centuries of Baptist Witness (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1987), 35–57.
2. Timothy George, Theology of the Reformers, rev. ed. (Nashville: B&H Academic, 2013), 255–307; see also H. Leon McBeth, The Baptist Heritage, 19–34.
3. The Baptist Faith and Message (2000), Article VI, “The Church”; Fisher Humphreys, The Way We Were: How Southern Baptists Lost Their Way and Found It Again (Macon, GA: Smyth & Helwys Publishing, 2002), 45–60.
4. Timothy George, Theology of the Reformers, 85–97.
5. H. Leon McBeth, The Baptist Heritage, 58–74.
6. Ruth Haley Barton, Pursuing God’s Will Together: A Discernment Practice for Leadership Groups (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2012), 21–44.
English translation assisted by ChatGPT
沒有留言 :
發佈留言