很多人談到浸信會時，最容易看見的是制度。會友大會、執事會、委員會、投票機制以及各種章則程序，都是浸信會十分鮮明的特色。有人欣賞這些制度能夠避免權力過度集中，也有人認為這些制度降低效率，讓教會難以快速回應環境變化。然而，如果我們回到浸信會形成的歷史背景，便會發現這些制度其實只是結果，而不是起點。真正的起點，是浸信會對教會本質的理解。十七世紀的浸信會先賢並不是先問：「什麼制度最有效率？」他們首先問的是：「如果基督是教會唯一的元首，那麼教會應該如何活在祂的主權之下？」正是在這樣的提問之下，後來才逐漸發展出地方教會自治、會眾治理以及各種參與式決策的傳統。¹
也因此，今天許多人對「地方教會自治」的理解，其實與浸信會原本的意思存在一定距離。我們很容易把自治理解成獨立自主，認為自治就是自己決定自己的事情，不受外來權威干預，也不需要向任何更高層級的組織負責。從某個角度來說，這種理解並非完全錯誤，但它仍然停留在權力層面。浸信會歷史上所強調的自治，其實不是「自己話事」的自由，而是「直接向基督負責」的責任。這兩者看似相近，實際上卻指向完全不同的方向。前者關心的是權力屬於誰，後者關心的則是教會最終應當向誰交帳。浸信會之所以堅持地方教會自治，不是因為相信地方教會擁有最高權力，而是因為相信基督才是最高權威，而地方教會作為一個屬靈群體，需要共同在基督面前尋求祂的心意。²
從這個角度來看，浸信會的治理傳統從來不只是某種權力分散的制度安排，而是一種建立在共同承擔之上的屬靈文化。它背後所關心的，不是如何限制某些人的權力，也不是如何讓每一個人都擁有發言權，而是如何讓整個群體一起活在基督的主權之下。正因如此，浸信會歷史上一直強調教會並不屬於任何個人。牧者不是教會的主人，執事不是教會的主人，會友也不是教會的主人。既然教會屬於基督，那麼每一位信徒都需要學習承擔尋求神旨意的責任，而不是把這種責任完全交託給少數領袖。從這個角度來看，治理最終處理的其實不是權力如何分配，而是整個群體如何一起學習順服基督。
也正因如此，浸信會後來逐漸形成會眾治理（Congregational Government）的傳統。然而，今天許多人一提到會眾治理，首先想到的往往是投票。彷彿只要有投票，就是浸信會；只要有會友大會，就是會眾治理。但如果只看見投票，我們其實很容易錯過浸信會最核心的精神。因為投票從來不是目的，而只是最後一步。真正重要的，是投票之前發生了什麼。在早期浸信會的理解裡，群體應該先一起禱告、一起查考聖經、一起討論、一起尋求神的帶領，然後才作出決定。換句話說，決定本身並不是治理的核心，共同辨識（discernment）才是治理的核心。投票的作用，並不是讓多數人的意見勝過少數人，而是在共同尋求神之後，確認群體所看見的方向。³
這也是為什麼《使徒行傳》第十五章常常被視為教會共同辨識的重要典範。當時教會面對一個足以影響福音發展的重要爭議：外邦信徒是否需要遵守摩西律法。面對這個問題，使徒和長老並沒有單方面宣布答案，也沒有依靠個人權威結束討論。相反，整個群體經歷了辯論、見證、分享、聆聽與思考，最後得出一個結論：「聖靈和我們定意……」（徒15:28）。這句話其實極具啟發性。它不是說「聖靈定意」，好像人完全不需要參與；也不是說「我們定意」，好像神沒有參與其中。它所描繪的，是一個群體在聖靈引導下共同辨識的過程。某程度上，這正是浸信會治理精神最深層的來源，也是會眾治理之所以存在的神學基礎。⁴
然而，當我們來到今天的教會現場時，我們也不得不承認，這種共同辨識的文化其實並不容易維持。近年來，我愈來愈覺得，許多教會的張力並不一定來自神學差異，也不一定來自某個決定本身是否正確，而是來自治理過程中的距離感。許多領袖團隊其實都十分認真，也真誠地希望為教會尋找最好的方向。他們投入大量時間研究資料、討論方案、分析風險，甚至經歷多輪會議才形成共識。然而，在不少情況下，整個辨識的過程卻只停留在少數人的圈子裡，直到方向已經確定，甚至已經進入執行階段，教會才第一次接觸到相關資訊。從現代管理學的角度來說，這種做法並沒有什麼問題，因為資訊集中往往能夠提高效率，也能減少反覆溝通所帶來的成本。然而，浸信會的治理精神從來不只是追求效率，而是希望整個群體一起學習尋求神。因此，當會眾長期只能參與結果，而無法參與辨識的過程時，即使最後作出的決定是合理的，也容易令人感受到某種距離感。很多時候，人們真正介意的未必是方向本身，而是自己從來沒有機會與群體一起經歷那段尋求神的旅程。這也是為什麼一些看似合理的決定，最終仍然可能引起不安或反彈，因為問題往往不只是決定內容，而是群體是否曾經一起走過形成決定的過程。
這也是為什麼我愈來愈認為，透明其實不只是管理技巧，而是浸信會神學的自然延伸。如果浸信會相信聖靈不只向牧者說話，也向整個教會說話；如果浸信會相信群體共同辨識的重要性，那麼群體便需要擁有足夠的資訊去參與辨識。透明所保護的，不只是知情權，而是共同尋求神的可能性。它所建立的，也不只是信任，而是一種共同承擔使命的文化。當資訊長期停留在少數人手中時，會眾自然只能被動回應；但當資訊被適當分享，群體才有機會一起禱告、一起思考、一起承擔。從這個角度來看，透明並不是治理的附屬品，而是共同辨識得以發生的重要條件。⁵
當然，這並不代表所有事情都必須完全公開，也不代表每一個決定都必須交由全體會眾處理。教會仍然需要授權、分工和不同層面的領導。浸信會歷史上從來都有牧者、執事和各種形式的領袖團隊。然而，這些角色存在的目的，不是取代群體尋求神，而是幫助群體更好地尋求神。因此，當我們重新思考治理時，也許最值得問的問題不是：「我們的制度是否足夠完善？」而是：「我們的治理文化是否仍然幫助群體一起尋求神？」因為制度可以被保留下來，而精神卻逐漸消失。投票可以仍然存在，會友大會可以仍然存在，執事會和委員會也可以仍然存在，但如果群體不再一起尋求神，那麼浸信會最初想保護的東西，可能早已悄悄流失。
回顧浸信會歷史，我愈來愈覺得，浸信會真正想保護的從來不是投票本身，也不是某一套固定的治理架構。它想保護的，是一個信念：教會最終向基督負責，而神往往透過整個群體來帶領祂的教會。因此，真正的治理，不只是管理事情，而是幫助群體共同承擔神所交託的使命；不只是追求效率，而是創造空間讓教會一起辨識神的帶領。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：當我們治理教會時，我們究竟是在管理一個組織，還是在牧養一個屬於基督的群體？
Antony傳道
註腳
- H. Leon McBeth, The Baptist Heritage: Four Centuries of Baptist Witness (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1987), 58–74.
- James Leo Garrett Jr., Baptist Theology: A Four-Century Study (Macon: Mercer University Press, 2009), 187–206.
- H. Leon McBeth, The Baptist Heritage, 70–81.
- 《使徒行傳》15:1–29；另參 Fisher Humphreys, The Way We Were (Macon: Smyth & Helwys, 2002), 61–75.
- Ruth Haley Barton, Pursuing God’s Will Together: A Discernment Practice for Leadership Groups (Downers Grove: IVP, 2012), 45–72.
Rethinking the Church from Baptist Tradition, History and Theology
Part 2 — What Are Baptists Trying to Protect? A Reflection on Governance
In the previous article, we considered the Baptist understanding of leadership. At its heart, Baptist leadership has never been primarily about the distribution of power, but about a more fundamental question: To whom does the church belong?
For early Baptists, the answer was clear. The church belongs neither to pastors, nor to deacons, nor to denominational structures. The church belongs to Christ. Therefore, the task of leadership is not to determine the church's future on behalf of the congregation, but to help the whole community seek the leadership of Christ together.
Yet this naturally raises another question. If the church belongs to Christ, and if Christ guides His people through the Holy Spirit, how should the church make decisions? How should it govern itself when facing questions concerning ministry, personnel, resources, or future direction?
Although these issues may appear to belong merely to the realm of administration and organizational structure, Baptists have historically regarded them first and foremost as theological questions.
When people think of Baptist churches, what they often notice most readily are the structures: church conferences, deacons' meetings, committees, voting procedures, and constitutions. Some appreciate these arrangements because they prevent excessive concentrations of power, while others criticize them for slowing decision-making and reducing efficiency.
Yet when we return to the historical origins of the Baptist movement, we discover that these structures were never the starting point. They were the result, not the foundation.
The real question posed by seventeenth-century Baptists was not, "What system works most efficiently?" Rather, they asked, "If Christ alone is the head of the church, how should the church live under His lordship?" It was from this theological conviction that local church autonomy, congregational polity, and traditions of participatory decision-making gradually emerged.¹
For this reason, many contemporary understandings of local church autonomy differ significantly from what Baptists originally intended. Autonomy is often understood as independence—the freedom to govern oneself without interference from outside authorities or accountability to higher structures. Such an understanding is not entirely mistaken, but it remains focused primarily on questions of power.
Historically, however, Baptists emphasized something different. Local church autonomy was not chiefly about the freedom to "run our own affairs," but about the responsibility to answer directly to Christ.
These may sound similar, but they point in very different directions. One asks who possesses authority; the other asks to whom the church must ultimately give an account.
Baptists did not insist upon local church autonomy because they believed that individual congregations possessed supreme authority. Rather, they insisted upon it because they believed that Christ alone possesses supreme authority, and that each local church, as a spiritual community, must seek His will together.²
Seen in this light, Baptist governance has never been merely a mechanism for distributing power. At its heart, it represents a spiritual culture of shared responsibility.
Its concern has never been simply to limit the authority of a few, nor merely to ensure that everyone has a voice. Rather, it seeks to enable the whole church to live together under the lordship of Christ.
For this reason, Baptists have consistently maintained that the church belongs to no individual. Pastors are not its owners. Deacons are not its owners. Neither are the members themselves. Since the church belongs to Christ, every believer shares the responsibility of seeking God's will rather than delegating that responsibility entirely to a small group of leaders.
Ultimately, governance is not primarily about the distribution of power, but about how the people of God learn together to submit to Christ.
It was within this framework that the Baptist tradition gradually developed congregational polity. Yet today, many people immediately associate congregational government with voting. It is almost as though voting itself defines what it means to be Baptist.
But if we focus only on the vote, we may miss the heart of the Baptist vision.
Voting was never intended to be the goal. It was only the final step.
The more important question is what takes place before the vote.
Early Baptists understood that God's people should pray together, search the Scriptures together, discuss matters together, and seek God's guidance together before arriving at a decision. In other words, the decision itself is not the center of governance; discernment is.
The purpose of voting is not to allow the majority to defeat the minority, but to confirm what the congregation has discerned together before God.³
This is why Acts 15 has often been regarded as one of the clearest biblical examples of communal discernment. Faced with a controversy that threatened the future of the gospel mission itself—the question of whether Gentile believers must observe the Mosaic law—the apostles and elders did not simply impose a solution through personal authority.
Instead, the church engaged in discussion, testimony, listening, reflection, and mutual deliberation. Eventually, they arrived at the remarkable conclusion:
"It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us..." (Acts 15:28).
These words are deeply significant. They do not say, "The Holy Spirit decided," as though human participation were unnecessary. Nor do they say, "We decided," as though God had no role in the process.
Rather, they portray a community discerning together under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
In many ways, this vision of shared discernment lies at the deepest roots of Baptist governance and provides one of the theological foundations for congregational polity itself.⁴
Yet maintaining such a culture is not easy.
Increasingly, I have come to believe that many tensions within churches arise not primarily from doctrinal disagreements or even from the decisions themselves, but from a sense of distance created during the process of governance.
Many leadership teams are deeply committed and sincerely desire what is best for the church. They invest considerable time researching, discussing, weighing risks, and seeking consensus. Yet in many cases, the discernment process remains confined to a relatively small circle. By the time information reaches the congregation, the direction has already been determined and implementation may already be underway.
From the perspective of modern management, such an approach is understandable. Concentrated information often increases efficiency and reduces the costs of repeated communication.
But Baptist governance has never been concerned with efficiency alone.
Its purpose is to help the whole church seek God together.
When congregations are permitted to participate only in the outcomes but not in the discernment that precedes them, even wise decisions can create a sense of distance. Often, people are not troubled primarily by the decision itself. What they grieve is that they were never invited to share in the journey of seeking God's will together.
Perhaps this explains why seemingly reasonable decisions sometimes provoke anxiety or resistance. The issue often lies not in the outcome itself, but in whether the church has truly walked together through the process that gave rise to it.
For this reason, I have increasingly come to believe that transparency is not merely a management technique. It is a natural extension of Baptist theology.
If the Holy Spirit speaks not only to pastors but also to the whole church, and if communal discernment truly matters, then the congregation must possess sufficient information to participate meaningfully in that process.
Transparency protects more than the right to know. It protects the possibility of seeking God together.
What it cultivates is not merely trust, but a culture of shared responsibility.
When information remains indefinitely in the hands of a few, the congregation can only respond passively. But when information is appropriately shared, God's people are able to pray together, think together, and bear the mission together.
In this sense, transparency is not an accessory to governance. It is one of the conditions that make communal discernment possible.⁵
Of course, this does not mean that everything must be made public, nor that every decision belongs to the entire congregation. Churches still require delegated authority, division of responsibilities, and different levels of leadership.
Throughout Baptist history, there have always been pastors, deacons, and leadership teams. Yet these roles exist not to replace the congregation's search for God's will, but to help the church seek God more faithfully.
Perhaps, then, the most important question is not whether our structures are sufficiently refined, but whether our culture of governance still helps the church seek God together.
Structures may remain intact while their spirit gradually disappears.
Voting may continue. Church conferences may continue. Committees and deacons' meetings may continue.
But if the church no longer seeks God together, then what Baptists originally sought to protect may already have quietly slipped away.
The more I study Baptist history, the more convinced I become that Baptists never intended to preserve voting procedures or a particular form of church government.
What they sought to preserve was a conviction:
The church is ultimately accountable to Christ, and God often leads His people through the whole community.
Therefore, authentic governance is not merely about managing affairs. It is about helping God's people share together in the mission entrusted to them. It is not simply about efficiency, but about creating space for the church to discern God's leading together.
And perhaps this is a question worth revisiting for every pastor, deacon, committee member, and ministry leader today:
When we govern the church, are we merely managing an organization, or are we shepherding a community that belongs to Christ?
Pastor Antony Lee
Notes
- H. Leon McBeth, The Baptist Heritage: Four Centuries of Baptist Witness (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1987), 58–74.
- James Leo Garrett Jr., Baptist Theology: A Four-Century Study (Macon, GA: Mercer University Press, 2009), 187–206.
- H. Leon McBeth, The Baptist Heritage, 70–81.
- Acts 15:1–29; see also Fisher Humphreys, The Way We Were: How Southern Baptists Lost Their Way and Found It Again (Macon, GA: Smyth & Helwys Publishing, 2002), 61–75.
- Ruth Haley Barton, Pursuing God’s Will Together: A Discernment Practice for Leadership Groups (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2012), 45–72.
Originally written in Chinese.
English translation assisted by ChatGPT.
沒有留言 :
發佈留言