如果說，第八篇所談的是重要的事情需要慢下來，第九篇所談的是領導不只是作決定，而是塑造群體，第十篇所談的是制度更新往往需要從文化開始，那麼到了這裡，我們或許需要面對一個更深層、也更貼近今天許多教會現況的問題：當我們都說要一起尋求神時，我們究竟是在談同一件事情嗎？
浸信會向來重視地方教會自治，也重視群體一起尋求神的帶領。我們相信基督是教會唯一的元首，也相信聖靈不只向個別領袖說話，而是向整個群體說話。因此，浸信會從早期開始，便十分強調會眾參與、共同責任以及群體辨識的重要性。然而，當我們真正進入教會生活時，卻很快會發現一個現實：即使大家都相信神仍然帶領教會，即使大家都認同共同辨識的重要性，彼此之間仍然可能出現很大的分歧。而這些分歧，很多時候並不只是來自大家對某個議題有不同看法，而是來自大家對「神究竟如何帶領教會」本身已有不同理解。
很多時候，我們談論教會衝突，很容易把問題理解成真理與異端、愛主與不愛主、屬靈與不屬靈之間的對立。然而，現實往往比這複雜得多。許多最令人痛苦的張力，不是來自一群不愛主的人，而是來自一群都愛主、都願意委身，也都真心希望教會好的弟兄姊妹。有人重視真理，有人重視關係；有人關心宣教，有人關心牧養；有人看見下一代的重要性，也有人看見現有會眾的需要。很多時候，雙方都不是出於惡意，也不一定有誰對誰錯，而是因為每個人所看見的重點不同、所背負的負擔不同、所經歷的人生也不同。
例如，一個執事會在討論資源分配時，有人認為應該優先投放在兒童和青少年事工，因為他們關心教會二十年後的未來；也有人認為應該先照顧長者和現有會眾，因為他們看見許多真實而迫切的需要。雙方都愛教會，也都願意忠心事奉，但彼此卻可能慢慢產生誤解，甚至開始懷疑對方是否真正關心教會。
然而，隨著我愈來愈多接觸不同教會，我開始發現，許多時候教會最大的張力並不在於議題本身，而在於大家對共同辨識有不同理解。
對有些人來說，共同辨識主要體現在程序與制度之中。只要資訊公開透明，每個人都有發言機會，經過充分討論，最後透過投票形成決定，這本身便是群體共同尋求的過程。從這個角度來看，會友大會、委員會制度以及地方教會自治，本身就是浸信會共同辨識的重要表現。程序保障參與，投票反映群體意願，而這些正正是浸信會傳統十分珍惜的價值。
然而，對另一些人來說，共同辨識不只是程序，更是一種屬靈操練。投票可以存在，但投票並不是核心。真正重要的，是群體是否一起查考聖經、一起禱告、一起聆聽聖靈的帶領，並且在這個過程中慢慢形成共識。對他們而言，程序是工具，而不是目的；投票可以確認決定，卻不能取代辨識本身。
因此，很多時候教會裡的張力，並不是因為一方相信共同辨識，而另一方不相信。恰恰相反，雙方都相信共同辨識，只是對共同辨識有不同理解。有人認為討論已經足夠，應該進入投票；另一邊卻可能認為群體仍未真正一起尋求神。有人認為程序已經完成；另一邊卻覺得屬靈辨識尚未開始。表面上是在討論某項提案，實際上卻是在實踐兩種不同的教會觀。
而當這些不同理解遇上焦慮時，情況往往變得更加複雜。
艾德溫．傅利民（Edwin H. Friedman）在研究群體焦慮與領導時指出，焦慮中的群體往往傾向尋找快速而安全的答案，而不是學習在不確定之中保持穩定。¹ 當群體愈來愈擔心犯錯時，人們自然會傾向選擇最穩妥的做法。於是，多做多錯，少做少錯；不做，似乎便最不會出錯。慢慢地，教會開始把「避免犯錯」視為最高價值，而不是把忠心跟隨基督視為最高價值。
這種文化最危險的地方，在於它往往披著「謹慎」的外衣。教會仍然有會議，仍然有委員會，仍然有投票和討論，但共同辨識卻可能慢慢退化成一種集體風險管理機制。人們關心的焦點，不再是神是否正在帶領我們進入新的方向，而是如何避免出錯；不再是如何忠心回應神的呼召，而是如何降低風險。
久而久之，新的事工愈來愈難開始，新的構想愈來愈難被接納，新的領袖愈來愈難被信任。教會愈來愈習慣維持現況，而不是探索新的可能。甚至講道也可能愈來愈傾向傳講那些不容易引起爭議的信息，而較少願意進入人的內心深處，面對生命的掙扎、傷痕與轉化。人們仍然談論真理，也仍然談論事奉，但整個群體卻可能慢慢失去期待神做新事的能力。
然而，這其實並不是浸信會歷史所追求的方向。
回顧浸信會四百多年的歷史，我們所看見的，從來不是一群只求安全的人。約翰．史密斯（John Smyth，約1570–1612）強調教會應在神話語面前共同尋求真理，而不是單單依靠既有權威。托馬斯．赫爾維斯（Thomas Helwys，約1575–1616）因主張宗教自由而被囚禁至死；羅傑．威廉斯（Roger Williams，1603–1683）為了實踐良心自由與政教分離的信念，被迫離開原有殖民地；而被稱為「近代宣教之父」的威廉．克理（William Carey，1761–1834），則在許多人認為海外宣教不切實際的年代，毅然推動近代宣教運動。²³⁴⁵
他們共同的地方，不是因為擁有十足把握才前進，而是因為相信基督仍然是教會真正的主，聖靈仍然在祂的百姓當中工作。
事實上，聖經從來沒有應許，一個願意尋求神的群體就永遠不會犯錯。共同辨識的目的，也不是保證每一個決定都正確。它真正的目的，是幫助群體在有限之中，一起學習跟隨神。因此，共同辨識從來不是為了讓教會不犯錯，而是讓教會能夠一起承擔、一起學習，也一起回應神新的帶領。
這也是為什麼，共同辨識最終並不是建立在投票之上，也不是建立在章程之上，而是建立在信任之上。當群體願意彼此接納、彼此聆聽、彼此尊重不同恩賜，也願意讓資訊保持透明，不讓少數人壟斷討論空間時，人們才有可能慢慢建立信任。而當信任逐漸形成，人們才願意放下防衛，不再只保護自己的事工、自己的部門和自己的立場，而開始一起尋求神對整個教會的帶領。
因此，包容、接納、信任、透明，以及不一言堂的態度，其實並不是共同辨識之後才需要的結果；它們本身就是共同辨識得以發生的土壤。同樣地，認識彼此恩賜的不同，也十分重要。因為共同辨識並不意味著每個人都擁有相同的看見，而是相信神能夠透過不同恩賜、不同背景、不同經歷的人，共同幫助群體看見更完整的圖畫。
或許，共同辨識最困難的地方也正在這裡。我們大多願意相信神會透過自己說話，也願意相信神會透過自己認同的人說話。但共同辨識真正的挑戰是：我們是否願意相信，神也可能透過那個與我意見不同的人向我說話？
如果答案是肯定的，那麼我們便不能急著離開桌子，也不能急著把對方標籤化。我們需要繼續聆聽，繼續尋求，也繼續相信神仍然在群體之中工作。
《使徒行傳》第十五章之所以如此動人，不是因為一開始就沒有分歧，而是因為在「很大的辯論」之後（徒十五7），他們仍然願意一起留在群體之中，一起聆聽，一起尋求神。最後，他們才能見證說：
「聖靈和我們定意。」（徒十五28）⁶
這句話之所以美麗，不只是因為他們達成共識，而是因為他們仍然相信，在眾多不同聲音之中，神仍然能夠帶領祂的教會。
或許，一間成熟的教會，不是從來沒有不同聲音的教會，也不是從來不會犯錯的教會，而是一間即使面對差異、張力、風險與不確定，仍然願意一起留在桌子旁、一起留在基督裡，並且相信神仍然帶領祂教會的群體。
Antony傳道
註腳
- 艾德溫．傅利民（Edwin H. Friedman）, A Failure of Nerve: Leadership in the Age of the Quick Fix (New York: Church Publishing, 2007), 19–44。
- 約翰．史密斯（John Smyth, 約1570–1612）被普遍視為浸信會運動的重要先驅之一。他原為英國分離派牧師，後來逐漸發展出信徒受浸與地方教會自治等思想，強調信徒群體應直接在神話語面前共同尋求真理，而非單純依賴既有教會權威。
- 托馬斯．赫爾維斯（Thomas Helwys, 約1575–1616）為早期英國浸信會領袖，被普遍視為第一位將浸信會運動帶回英格蘭的人。他公開主張宗教自由與良心自由，認為君王無權統治人的良心，最終被囚禁於 Newgate Prison 並死於獄中。
- 羅傑．威廉斯（Roger Williams, 1603–1683）為北美殖民地時期重要牧者及思想家，被視為宗教自由與政教分離的重要倡導者。他因反對政府干預宗教事務而被放逐，其後創立羅德島（Rhode Island），成為當時少數保障宗教自由的地方。
- 威廉．克理（William Carey, 1761–1834）為英國浸信會牧者及宣教士，被稱為「近代宣教之父」。他推動成立浸信會差會，並前往印度宣教超過四十年，對近代基督教宣教運動影響深遠。
- 《使徒行傳》15:1–29。
Rethinking the Church through Baptist Tradition, History, and Theology (Practical Reflections)
Part 11 — The Greatest Challenge of Communal Discernment
When We Mean Different Things by “Seeking God Together”
If Part 8 argued that important matters require us to slow down, Part 9 explored how leadership is not merely about making decisions but about shaping a community, and Part 10 suggested that lasting renewal usually begins with culture rather than structure, then we now arrive at an even deeper challenge—one that lies beneath many of the tensions experienced in churches today. When we say that we want to seek God’s will together, are we actually talking about the same thing?
Baptists have long cherished the principles of local church autonomy and congregational participation. We affirm that Christ alone is the Head of the Church, and we believe that the Holy Spirit does not speak only through individual leaders but through the gathered people of God. For this reason, Baptist churches have historically emphasized shared responsibility, congregational involvement, and the importance of communal discernment. Yet once we move from theological conviction into the realities of church life, an uncomfortable truth quickly emerges. Even when everyone sincerely believes that God continues to guide His church, and even when everyone agrees that seeking God together is important, significant disagreements can still arise. More often than not, these disagreements do not stem simply from differing opinions on a particular issue. They arise because people often hold different assumptions about how God guides His church in the first place.
When church conflicts occur, we instinctively frame them in simple categories: truth versus error, faithfulness versus compromise, spiritual people versus unspiritual people. The reality of congregational life, however, is often far more complex. Some of the most painful tensions arise not because people lack commitment to Christ, but because committed believers see different aspects of the church’s calling with equal sincerity. One person may be deeply burdened for biblical faithfulness, while another feels strongly about pastoral care and relationships. Some are passionate about evangelism and mission; others are concerned about discipleship, family ministry, or the spiritual formation of the next generation. In many cases, neither side is acting out of selfish motives, and neither side is necessarily wrong. They simply see different parts of the same picture.
Consider, for example, a deacons’ board discussing how limited resources should be allocated. Some may argue that greater investment should be directed toward children and youth ministries because they are thinking about the church twenty years from now. Others may believe that resources should first be devoted to seniors and existing members because they see immediate and pressing needs within the congregation. Both groups may love the church deeply. Both may desire to serve faithfully. Yet over time, misunderstandings can develop, and people may begin to question whether those on the other side truly care about the church at all.
The more churches I encounter, the more convinced I become that many of our deepest tensions do not arise from the issues themselves. They arise because we understand communal discernment differently.
For some, communal discernment is primarily expressed through process and procedure. If information is shared openly, everyone has an opportunity to speak, discussion is allowed, and decisions are eventually reached through voting, then the congregation has fulfilled its responsibility to seek God’s guidance together. From this perspective, congregational meetings, committee structures, and local church governance are themselves important expressions of Baptist convictions. Procedures safeguard participation, and voting reflects the will of the congregation.
For others, however, communal discernment is more than a process; it is a spiritual discipline. Voting may have a place, but voting is not the heart of discernment. What matters most is whether the congregation has searched the Scriptures together, prayed together, listened carefully to one another, and sought the leading of the Holy Spirit. Procedures may support discernment, but they cannot replace it. Voting may ratify a decision, but it cannot substitute for the deeper work of seeking God together. To them, process is a tool rather than a destination.
As a result, tensions often arise not because one side believes in communal discernment and the other does not. On the contrary, both sides may value communal discernment deeply. The difference lies in how they understand it. One group may feel that sufficient discussion has already taken place and that it is time to move forward. Another group may feel that genuine discernment has barely begun. One side believes that the process has been completed; the other believes that the spiritual work remains unfinished. On the surface they appear to be debating a proposal. Beneath the surface they are operating from two different understandings of how God’s guidance is discerned within the life of the church.
The situation becomes even more complicated when anxiety enters the picture. Edwin Friedman observed that anxious systems naturally seek quick and safe answers rather than learning how to remain steady amid uncertainty.¹ As fear increases, people become increasingly concerned about avoiding mistakes. Gradually, avoiding failure becomes more important than pursuing faithfulness. Doing less appears safer; doing nothing appears safest of all. Over time, a church may begin to measure success not by its willingness to follow Christ, but by its ability to avoid risk.
This is what makes anxiety so deceptive. It often disguises itself as prudence. Meetings continue. Committees continue. Discussions continue. Votes continue. Yet communal discernment slowly deteriorates into collective risk management. The central question is no longer, “Where might God be leading us?” but “How can we avoid making a mistake?” As this mindset takes hold, new ministries become harder to begin, new ideas become harder to consider, and new leaders become harder to trust. Churches become increasingly skilled at preserving what already exists while gradually losing their expectation that God may still do something new among His people.
Yet this is not the trajectory we see throughout Baptist history. The Baptist tradition was not built by people whose highest priority was safety. Figures such as John Smyth, Thomas Helwys, Roger Williams, and William Carey moved forward not because they possessed certainty, but because they believed Christ remained Lord of the Church and that the Holy Spirit continued to work among God’s people.²³⁴⁵
Scripture never promises that a church sincerely seeking God will never make mistakes. The purpose of communal discernment is not to guarantee perfect decisions. Rather, it helps God’s people learn together how to follow Christ faithfully despite their limitations. For that reason, communal discernment ultimately rests not upon voting, constitutions, or procedures, but upon trust. When information is shared openly, when different gifts are respected, when disagreement does not threaten belonging, and when no individual controls the conversation, trust begins to grow. Only then do people gradually lower their defenses and become willing to seek God’s direction for the whole church rather than merely protecting their own ministries, preferences, or positions.
This is why qualities such as openness, transparency, mutual respect, trust, and a willingness to avoid one-person rule are not merely the outcomes of communal discernment; they are the conditions that make communal discernment possible. Likewise, recognizing the diversity of gifts within the body of Christ is essential. Discernment does not require everyone to see the same thing. Rather, it requires a shared belief that God may reveal different parts of His will through different people.
Perhaps this is where communal discernment becomes most difficult. Most of us are willing to believe that God speaks through us. We are often willing to believe that God speaks through people who already agree with us. The deeper challenge is whether we are willing to believe that God may also speak through someone with whom we disagree.
If the answer is yes, then we cannot rush away from the table. We cannot reduce one another to labels. We must continue listening, continue seeking, and continue trusting that God remains at work among His people. Acts 15 is powerful not because disagreement was absent. Luke explicitly tells us there was “much debate” before unity emerged (Acts 15:7). Yet the believers remained together. They continued listening. They continued seeking God. Only then were they able to say, “It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us” (Acts 15:28).⁶
The beauty of that statement lies not merely in the outcome but in the journey that preceded it. A mature church is not a church without differing voices, nor is it a church that never makes mistakes. A mature church is one that remains at the table, remains in Christ, and continues trusting that God is still capable of leading His people—even through voices they least expected to hear.
Pastor Antony
Notes
- Edwin H. Friedman, A Failure of Nerve: Leadership in the Age of the Quick Fix (New York: Church Publishing, 2007), 19–44.
- John Smyth (c. 1570–1612).
- Thomas Helwys (c. 1575–1616).
- Roger Williams (1603–1683).
- William Carey (1761–1834).
- Acts 15:1–29.
沒有留言 :
發佈留言