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
- Timothy George, Theology of the Reformers (Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 2013), 85–97.
- E. Y. Mullins, The Axioms of Religion (Philadelphia: Judson Press, 1908), 53–74.
- James Leo Garrett Jr., Baptist Theology: A Four-Century Study (Macon, GA: Mercer University Press, 2009), 169–188.
- 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.
沒有留言 :
發佈留言