After reading the many comments/stories on this website recently regarding the problems surrounding organisations in TJC, I think it’s time for us to discuss the underlying problem of all – The hierarchical organisations within TJC
看過最近本網站許多圍繞關於真耶穌教會組織的評論和故事之後，我想該是我們討論本質之問題–真耶稣教會里阶层性的組織– 的時候了。
To make this as short and concise as possible, I would like to discuss, first of all, a common misunderstanding – current structure of church organisation is established in accordance with our Lord’s will because it existed in both the OT and the NT. Therefore, members should submit to organisations in church. Commonly used examples are the system of the rulers of the 10s, 50s, 100s, and 1000s in the OT and the Jerusalem “council” in the NT. However, have we ever considered the following questions:
為了盡可能簡潔明了，首先我想討論的是一個普遍的誤解–就是認為目前的教會組織架构的建立是符合主的旨意的，因為它存在於新舊兩約之中。因此，信徒理應服從教會的組織管理。通常所引用的例子就是在舊約中十夫長，五十夫長，百夫長，千夫長的系統以及新約時期耶路撒冷的“公會”。但是，我們有否曾經考慮過以下問題：
- Did a council (ie organisation) really exist in the church in Jerusalem or was it just a special conference/meeting of elders/apostles (probably happened only once at the time) to discuss a specific problem? There is actually quite a bit about the conference itself that we can discuss. Eg did the resolution of the meeting really come from the Holy Spirit? (note the word “SEEMED” in Acts 15:28; bad translation in Chinese). Anyway, that’d be for another time.
公會（即組織）真的存在於耶路撒冷裡的教會嗎？或者它只是為了討論一個特殊的問題而由長老／使徒召開的會議（很可能在當時只發生一次）？其實，就這會議本身我們可進行多種討論，例如：會議的決議真的是來自聖靈麼？（注意在使徒行傳１５：２８節，英譯有〝看起來〞這個詞，可惜中文翻譯沒有）總之，這等下次再談 - Was Jethro of God or gentile? Was he a priest of Midian or a priest of God? If Jethro was not God’s priest, should Moses have followed his advice and not fully obyed God's instruction to him? Even if Jethro were to be God's priest, can we then assume his advice was from our Lord and not simply a human opinion?
葉忒羅是屬神的還是外邦人？他是米甸的祭司還是神的祭司？如果他不是神的祭司，那摩西應該去採納他的建議而不去完全服從神給 就算如果葉忒羅是神的祭司，那我們是否就可以他的指示嗎？ 假設他的建議一定是出於我們的主而不是單單出於人的觀點呢？
- Perhaps Moses heeded Jethro’s advice out of respect because Jethro was his father-in-law. In any case, although it seemed like our Lord didn’t object to the system of the rulers, can we then say such organisation was our Lord’s will? Our Lord allowed the Israelites to have kings, but was He pleased with the system of the kings? Didn’t the kings and their organisational structures lead to their destruction at the end?
也許摩西聽從葉忒羅的意見是出於尊重，因為葉忒羅是他的岳父。儘管我們的主似乎不反對這種管理組織方式，但我們是否就可以因此說這樣的組織就是出於我主的旨意？主雖容許以色列人有國王，然而祂喜悅他們的要求嗎？國王和他們的組織系統不是最終導致其王國的毀滅嗎？
It is pretty clear to me that organisational structure is not the way our Lord wants us to manage the church with. organisational structure works in a company but not in our Lord's household because it gives certain people the kingdom and power that only Christ and His body should have. Church organisation is a temptation that make people proud because it gives them kingdom and power.
對我來說這已相當清楚：就是說組織架構並不是我們的主要我們在管理教會上所使用的方法。組織架構適用於公司行號但在我主的家中行不通， 因為它會授予了某些人唯有基督和祂的身體才配擁有的國度和權炳。教會組織是一種試探，使人驕傲，因它帶來了國度和權炳。
Some may argue that the problem lies with the people within the organisation, not the organisational bodies themselves and they talk about the benefits of having organisation in church if people are all good. But why giving Satan the opportunity to tempt you? Can we not be organised without organisation? In fact, some of the so called "benefits" may not really be beneficial at all!
有人可能會說，問題在於組織內的人而不是組織本身，並說如果人人都很好的話那教會組織就有益處。但是為什麼要給撒旦機會來誘惑你呢？難道沒有組織 (organization)，我們就不能被“組織”(organized) 起來了麼？事實上，一些所謂的“益處”也許根本就沒益處！
I welcome your feedback and let's not forget to meditate and pray before we reply. emotional comments are not beneficial, are they?
歡迎大家的反饋，但在我們作出評論之前請不要忘記默想和禱告。情緒化的言論是沒有益處的。
我想，談論教會組織結構的問題，是相關於目前討論的主題的。透過楊傳道和莆田教會的事例，所需要揭示和面對的，正是關於組織的存在是否合理，它的存在以及運作是否符合神的旨意 這樣一個基本中心和事物根源，因為目前所有矛盾皆是出於人為的操作，已經遠離了“神政”這個核心。
教會中提倡“神政民主”，不是大陸總會的專利，事實上，各處教會的講台上都有引用和耳聞。被提倡的初衷，是希望實現使徒時代那種教會的管理方式和屬靈氛圍，但實現的後果，卻是出現令人意想不到的混亂，出現了兩面性：即好的初衷與誤入歧途的效果。為什麼這樣說？
追根求源，“神政民主”為人提供了一幅幅主神掌權，忠僕謙卑，萬民平等，彼此服侍，和睦同居的美好圖畫，這不能不叫人切慕嚮往。不管是政治還是宗教，經過專制的摧殘之後，“民主”在當今時代早已成為一種時尚。人人渴望自己的意見能夠得到平等的表述，自身的權利得到尊重。所以，人們對“民主”這一理念趨之若鶩。
教會中，按照本能的解讀，大眾首先最容易聯想到的是：有了對教會的決策的監督權，這樣，在教會的管理中，就可以避免屬靈上的專政；其次，大家也可以有民主表達的權利，按照聖靈的感動，參與教會各項聖工和屬靈建設。這是皆大歡喜的事。
因此理所當然地，這個倡導，代表了一種開明，一種平等，一種的謙卑以及一種彼此造就的屬靈氛圍。從這層的理解和期待來看，屬於一個好的初衷，一個受歡迎的的建議。但是意願和現實，如果不小心運用，往往最後在結論這個環節就顯出差別來了。
這種含有善意的神政民主觀念，到底是建立在一種什麼樣的基礎上的？又為什麼等到運用的時候，卻違背初衷，跟我們的理想中嚮往的東西，相去甚遠？
“神政民主”一一以一個好的初衷被倡導，但到了施行的時候，原先的主神掌權卻變味成管家代替神言，群民也為了尊重神言，所以就不能不尊重眼前這些個彷彿代替神言的管家的吩咐；再來，雖然大家同為僕人，但忠僕謙卑變成要別的僕人謙卑下來，聽從“我”的意見；萬民平等被詮釋成：你們得救的身份是與“我們”平等的，但在真理的領受上，必須接受“教會”（也就是管家）的領導。――這是現實的真實寫照。
具體分析王長老的寫作思路，需要引進參照王長老引用的使徒行傳１５－１６章：
使徒行传里两次重要的圣工会议，就是神政民主管理制度最集中的体现（徒11：1-18；徒15：1-21）。第一次是针对彼得为外邦人哥尼流全家 施洗而在教会内引起不同信仰背景的门徒之间的争端（徒11：1-2） 而召集的会议。使徒彼得以异象的见证（徒11：4-11，13-14），圣灵的见证（徒11：12，15）和主耶稣的话（徒11：16 我就想起主的话说：‘约翰是用水施洗，但你们要受圣灵的洗。’）--真理的见证，来证明他们的工作符合神的旨意，从而达成“神也赐恩给外邦人，叫他们悔改得生命”的正确结论，在教会内统一了认识（徒11：18）。第二次会议的原因是，圣灵差遣保罗和巴拿巴往外邦旅行布道，主与他们同工，外邦教会如雨后春笋纷纷建立起来。这时有几个犹太人门徒，没有受耶路撒冷教会使徒和长老的差遣，私自到外邦教会宣扬自己 错误的信仰观点--“你们若不按摩西的规条受割礼，不能得救”，从而“搅扰”和“惑乱”了外邦众教会（徒15：1-2，23-24）。于是众教会就派保罗、巴拿巴和信徒代表（徒15：2）上耶路撒冷教会，使徒和长老就召集不同观念的门徒“聚会商议这事”（徒15：5-6）。会议中经过民主的发言和辩论（徒15：6-12），最后由雅各布长老作出了合乎神旨意的结论（徒15：13-21），并且把会议的结论以书面形式，差派工人向众教会传达，众门徒也都顺服遵守“使徒和长老所定的条规”，于是众教会安定、团结、喜乐，大家的信心越发坚固，信徒人数天天加增（徒15：30，16：4-5）
還有一點，就是這兩個事例的內容到底說明什麼？預先要達到的目的是什麼？
注意看：第一次會議的中心議題是可不可以接納沒受割禮的外邦人的問題，其實他們統一認識是因為有异象的见证、圣灵的见证、主耶稣的话。因此根本就扯不上什麼神政民主的問題，而是完全出於聖靈的帶領和主耶穌的話。這裡如果談神政民主的話，簡直就是偷換概念的誤導。因為說到民主，就是指你們個人說出各人的感受、意見、理解或感動，如果這一切只是出於人，那麼再感動人再符合邏輯或再擁有美好的前景展望，都只說明是人的一廂情願和人自己的感動而已。富有諷刺意味的是，那些提出質疑的人所持有的心態和行為，不正是與今天要實行“民主”之人同出一撤嗎？－－就是自以為懂真理，擁有對真理的解釋權而去質問人家，最後
使徒們最後達成統一認識的前提，是由於被同一個聖靈帶領，蒙同樣的見證感動，並且一心順服神的意思，才得來的，不是按照長老用什麼“民主集中製” 的原則（就是你們先民主發表自己的意見，最後到長老這裡集中起來，聽長老最後定奪的做法）來的決定。所以，第一次會議，與神政民主無關。
第二次會議，割禮的問題。彼得長老和雅各長老憑著什麼說話？他們的決定從何而來？是人的民主嗎？還是看見神的旨意以及聖經預言的一貫性？
從黑體字強調的部分，我們分別來看
一。彼得長老的反應
１）神親自為他們做見證了，用所賜的一樣的聖靈來為他們作見證。
２）他們身上顯明了“信”，顯明了神藉著道潔淨了他們的心。
３）認識到得救的根源，乃是因為蒙受了主耶穌的恩，不是由於自己是被揀選的族類，就可以擁有的一貫優越。都是蒙了主施的恩典。說明了他懂得了要尊重神主權的決定。
二。眾人的反應
眾人是不是像我們想像的那樣開始呱噪了呢？大家打著民主的旗幟開始爭吵了呢？――沒有！Act 15:12 众人都默默无声，听巴拿巴和保罗述说神借他们在外邦人中所行的神迹、奇事。
三。雅各長老的總結
最激動人心，顯示長老權威的時刻到！雅各長老到底要屈服於眾人出於傳統和保守理念所質疑的，還是贊同保羅、巴拿巴的見證？到底哪樣是出自於神的呢？
根據經文的一貫性，眾先知的話，他說“不可难为那归服神的外邦人”，這個決定就是他靈裡的“看見”。
――歸根到底，整件事情的過程，並不像王長老想像或闡述的那樣，是出於長老們的決定，而是由於神親自的證明，聖靈的感動，才使得他們有屬靈的看見，是神政的心意向他們顯明，他們釐清了思路，表決要順服神。這裡面一點都不關教會的事，誰說教會在這個過程當中起到什麼引導做用了？就連長老本身也是被引導，而不是引導人。他們的決定，只是神藉著他們的順服，才使用他們的口去傳達神自己執政的旨意。所以也根本不是神政民主自以為是的那個意思。換句話說，就是一丁點也不關長老們天生的智力和所謂權力方面的事，他們只是一個神聖言與旨意的傳達者而已。
Act 15:2 保罗、巴拿巴与他们大大地纷争辩论；众门徒就定规，叫保罗、巴拿巴和本会中几个人，为所辩论的，上耶路撒冷去见使徒和长老。
Act 15:6 使徒和长老聚会商议这事。
Act 15:7 辩论已经多了，彼得就起来，说：“诸位弟兄，你们知道神早已在你们中间拣选了我，叫外邦人从我口中得听福音之道，而且相信。
Act 15:8 知道人心的神也为他们作了见证，赐圣灵给他们，正如给我们一样；
Act 15:9 又借着信洁净了他们的心，并不分他们我们。
Act 15:10 现在为什么试探神，要把我们祖宗和我们所不能负的轭，放在门徒的颈项上呢？
Act 15:11 我们得救，乃是因主耶稣的恩，和他们一样，这是我们所信的。”
Act 15:12 众人都默默无声，听巴拿巴和保罗述说神借他们在外邦人中所行的神迹、奇事。
Act 15:13 他们住了声，雅各就说：“诸位弟兄，请听我的话。
Act 15:14 方才西门述说神当初怎样眷顾外邦人，从他们中间选取百姓归于自己的名下；
Act 15:15 众先知的话也与这意思相合。
Act 15:16 正如经上所写的：‘此后，我要回来，重新修造大卫倒塌的帐幕，把那破坏的，重新修造建立起来；
Act 15:17 叫余剩的人，就是凡称为我名下的外邦人，都寻求主。
Act 15:18 这话是从创世以来显明这事的主说的。
Act 15:19 所以据我的意见，不可难为那归服神的外邦人；
Act 15:20 只要写信，吩咐他们禁戒偶像的污秽和奸淫，并勒死的牲畜和血。
Act 15:21 因为从古以来，摩西的书在各城有人传讲，每逢安息日，在会堂里诵读。”
Act 15:22 那时，使徒和长老并全教会定意从他们中间拣选人，差他们和保罗、巴拿巴同往安提阿去；所拣选的，就是称呼巴撒巴的犹大和西拉。这两个人在弟兄中是作首领的；
Act 15:23 于是写信交付他们，内中说：“使徒和作长老的弟兄们问安提阿、叙利亚、基利家外邦众弟兄的安。
還有另外的總結，就是一些觀念上的分辨：
第一，我們不可能監督神。“神政”的實質是：既然是神政，就不存在民主。你民誰的主？民主的實質意義還沒搞清楚，就開始運用了，那不跟不會用方向盤就想開車一樣衝動？這種衝動的結果是要你自己付上代價的。
民主存在的意義，就是實現監督的職能，實現維護自己利益的目的。神對你的施政，輪得到你去說監督的嗎？從這個角度講，神政民主向人展現出的，是一個荒謬的論點。好，我們肯定自己不敢，也不能夠去監督神，這一點算解決了。
第二，我們如何用“民主”去監督人？
監督需要觀察力、同理心、更需要有一個真理的客觀標準。
但凡人都是一樣的，沒有完人。這人與那人可能恩賜不一，對真理的領受程度也不盡相同，因而對真理客觀標準的理解和應用也就存在差異。基本上各人都習慣也喜歡站在自己的地步上說話，如果用“民主”來讓大家發揮特長，勢必會如“盲人摸象”那般，誰也說服不了誰，因為每個人說話的出發點、觀察點都在自己的這個角度上。即使有了客觀的真理標準，也熟視無睹，不高興敗了自己的興而去委屈運用，自己站在那邊都不挪步，又怎麼談監督別人？！
所以，結論出來了，靠著自己的水平，靠著天然的本性，即使有真理可循，我們也不一定就會善用，以“民主”的做法去監督別人，基本上不是屬於吃飽撐的，就是屬於自我意識的極度膨脹。
第三，真正實現監督功用的，是神所差派的保惠師聖靈。只有聖靈，才能按照神的意思來敦促、教導和提醒我們。不是按我們人的水平！不是按人的意思、人的領會、人的臆斷、人通過學習和訓練而得來的那些所謂屬靈知識。這一點上，我們永遠只能做神旨意的追隨者，因為祂的道路，高過我們的道路。而所謂能明白神的旨意，也就因此而成為相對的了，就是說，你願意去明白，神也願意讓你明白的時候，才有那個可能，否則，只能算是你的主觀猜測和自主多情的神經過敏罷了。一句話，誰也監督不了誰，除了聖靈。我們能給別人提的，最多只能是參考和意見，不屬於蓋棺定論的所謂“我監督你”的性質。
所以，所謂神政民主是個錯誤的提倡，在教會管理中是一個極大的敗筆。
神的教會，只提倡順服神，只提倡在同一個聖靈的感動下，基於對真理的共識而彼此順服，而假借“民主”的時髦和煽動，只有徒增教會的雜音，是與對真理的持守和造就背道而馳的提倡。
Bravo for Simple!
问题的根本不是把教会的精力花费在寻找“最好最有效的组织方式”，而是这组织能否依照“异象的见证、圣灵的见证、主耶稣的话”去做决定的指南？
Simple同灵的见解非常的精确，不管神的子民要以何等的方式去组织教会，去管理教会，问题的根本不是把教会的精力花费在寻找“最好最有效的组织方式”，而是我们如何在一个组织下，无论是要处理一些问题，要定下教会工作的方针，要组织另一个组织等等，我们这个组织有没有这个能力，把这必须要决定的事，依照“异象的见证、圣灵的见证、主耶稣的话”去做决定的指南？
所以Simple说这种决定的方式並不是一个属世式的民主方式！在这属世式的民主方式之下，每一个人可以任凭各人自己的意思提出自己的建议，这建议可以不依据主耶稣的道理而产生的。
但主耶稣的教会却要非常小心不要中了“偷換概念”的计谋，以属世式的民主方式取代了“神政”。
Simple这一段话值得我们把它保留下来，做为这讨论题目下的座右铭！
“使徒們最後達成統一認識的前提，是由於被同一個聖靈帶領，蒙同樣的見證感動，並且一心順服神的意思，才得來的，不是按照長老用什麼“民主集中製” 的原則（就是你們先民主發表自己的意見，最後到長老這裡集中起來，聽長老最後定奪的做法）來的決定。所以，第一次會議，與神政民主無關”
但请不要误会我这么说是要终止寻找最好的“行政管理”方式的讨论！
平安！
Thanks, Simple, for your feedback. I basically agreed with the points you tried to make, although personally I wouldn't use the example of the Jerusalem council to support my view because as far as I'm concerned the resolution of the meeting was based on James' own opinion and frankly it's more like a compromise of God's truth. If we consider what apostle Paul really taught about circumcision in his epistles, then we'll know why.
Anyway, after reading your comment I was reminded of one question about TJC’s organisational system – why do we have Truth Research Committees either locally or globally? I think perhaps over time most of us have forgotten some very basic things such as:
1. What is Truth? Does Truth come from God or a group of people? What is the truth with regards to how we can be saved?
2. Is having the Truths the same as knowing/understanding the Truths? Can understanding the Truth of salvation get you to heaven or obeying the Truth? It appears to me that most of us do not or cannot distinguish between truths and understandings/knowledge. I actually touched upon this briefly a while ago in my comment “truth is revealed gradually?” (the forum topic disappeared for some reason). If we can tell the difference, then why do we need a TRC to research the truth if we already have the truth from God? Should we consider any IA TRC’s conclusion as truth or merely an understanding of a truth? If it’s just an understanding, there is no right or wrong until the Holy Spirit confirms it, isn’t it? If it’s just an understanding, you don’t need people to accept/obey/preach it as if it’s the truth, do you? Truth should be accepted/obeyed/proclaimed but understandings/knowledge are only agreed/disagreed; this is common sense. Why then do we ask members to obey the TRC’s resolutions? Is it because we’ve considered their resolutions as truths from God?
3. If we are only discussing understandings/knowledge, is it necessary to argue/debate over them, to the point of causing bad feelings/disharmony among us?
In fact, most of the teachings we talk about today, including the sharings on this website, are merely understanding/knowledge of the truth, not the truth itself. Can you see the difference now? Simply put, Truths are the words of God (not words in the Bible, because Bible contains not only words of God, but words of men and words of Satan!); the rest is just understanding/knowledge. Eg. Our Lord said that He was the creator of heavens and earth, so that’s the truth about creation. Then, as to whether or not why He created He did not reveal. Traditionalists have their understanding. YM has his understanding, and a friend of mine also has his own understanding (similar to YM's but I'd say it's "deeper"). Until the Holy Spirit confirms it with you personally, you cannot say “I am right” or “you are wrong”. At best you can say “you have misunderstood” if you want.
Another example which is more fundamental – baptism. We all accept it is true that we need to bow our heads during baptism (this was revealed by God to our early worker Paul Wei). As to why the bowing of heads? People in TJC were taught to understand it from Rom 6 but to be frank, I don’t agree with such understanding because I don’t think Paul was referring to bowing of head in Rom 6. In fact, many of the illiterate and elderly brothers and sisters wouldn’t even understand the truth when you share with them. Does it mean they cannot be saved? Certainly not! We are saved by grace through faith and obedience (true faith comes with obedience really), not by understandings! In fact, you can even define faith as to accept something without understanding it!
If we can separate understanding the truth from having the truth, we will realise that, in fact, not every statement in our 5 doctrines or 10 basic beliefs can be considered as truth! As a matter of fact, I can say that most of them are merely understandings of the truths! What does that mean then? It means you and I can agree/disagree with the understandings in our doctrines/basic beliefs, but does it mean we are not united in the Truth? Certainly not! Don’t we all believe that our Lord created heavens and earth? Don’t we all practice the same baptism even though some may understand it differently? Don’t we all have the same Holy Spirit although some are following His guidance and some are not? In my humble opinion, we should all be able to agree with each other's understandings if each and every one of us can be guided and taught by the Holy Spirit!
Dear Daniel,
I am troubled and disturbed by your article above because there were several statements in the article sound rather scary. Let me elaborate.
1. Firstly, about truth
Truth is something genuine, in accordance with fact or reality. Worldly truth might change in time. For example when cancer was first discovered, we said cancer could not be cured but it is not totally true today. Biblical truth, on the other hand, is permanent and for forever. Either you believe it or you don't. It is not bargainable. For example, Jesus is God.
Biblical truth, in most instants, cannot be explained or proved scientifically, for example the way God created the world and all the living things in the world. You can choose to either believe it or not. There is no such thing as understanding or knowing because there is no way one can verify or prove. There is no such thing as understanding as such that I understood that God might not had created the world in 7 days. We have to believe that it was 7 days because the Bible told us so.
Truth is not truth if it can be proved otherwise at a particular given time. If we can discuss and debate about its genuineness or worst still, several possibilities exist, it cannot be truth. The worst scenario is that it can be right or wrong.
2. Secondly, truths are the words of God but not the words in Bible. Bible contained not only the words of God but also words of men and words of Satan!
This is a very shocking and frightening proclamation. If Bible did not contain only words of God, how do we know which were words of God, words of men, and worst still words of Satan. How can we be sure to read only God words so that we are following the right path to salvation? How do we know what are right to believe? Which church is the true church? What basic beliefs are we talking about? What doctrines?
If we cannot believe the words in the Bible as words from God, how can we believed Paul Wei’s words on how baptism should be conducted. He is a man after all.
I, however, do agree with you that many of us have not fully understood the truth given in the Bible by God. Because of that, the world is divided with so many denominations of Christian churches even when we are sharing and readding the same Bible. While we all believe that our church is the "one" chosen and blessed most by God, we are still functionally,hopefully not spiritually, divided. Obviously we have not fully understood the God’s words. We are, at best, believed that we have understood the words but yet to reach the truth. That is what the forum here trying to reach, I hope.
God bless us all
微觀雖然距離近,細節多,但大方向,大對錯要跳出來看,比較不會偏失.
看事情的距離很重要,這裏關於教會實際面的討論,我讀到今日的感覺是,微觀的比重大了些,雖然最後都把問題帶往一種層次較高的通則建立的思考,試圖接觸制度,宏觀而使這個題目跳脫出枝尾末結的小格局,但這種努力引發的似乎是更多的細瑣,所有的碎屑不能拼湊出什麼宏遠大計,最後變成一種權力結構的質疑,我個人認為這是一種廉價的小結,因為走不出來,急急忙忙抓了一個具體的對象好讓整個論述有個焦點.組織是一種權力結構,長執會是一種權力結構.我們需要權力結構嗎?我讀到了疑問句型的肯定句.
不論最後大家把討論引向什麼層次?什麼規模.但請回到原點看看,出發點是悲情的;心中是窒杌的,過程是憂慮的,而且似乎不太可能得到一種能解決問題的結論, 為什麼呢?不是因為各位言微人輕,長執不理,而是因為我們在這裏只享受著討論的權利,並沒有非得執行的壓力,這種情況下的論述與設計人員在腦力激盪的訓練階段沒有不同,因為你只管想和講,完全不必考慮到執行,大家都想了很多,講了很 多,然後希望長執會去執行,希望教會照我們所理解的正確方法去做,這種"顧問"式的 智囊,沒有實質的責任,沒有成敗的壓力,什麼責任?將來要向大牧者主耶穌交帳的責任.什麼壓力?如果領路領錯了,傳福音給別人,自己反被棄絕了的壓力.無論這裡如何引經據典,但那個理解與方案卻要別人去執行,由別人負起成敗大任,這樣的思考很難聚焦,深化,週全.因為缺乏那種如臨深淵的臨場感,沒有這種恐怖的壓力,我的經驗是就不可能有那種真正的清醒與覺悟.一個王國的命脈與發展,各位能想像就在一個教室裏,一個教授帶著幾個研究生開了一系列的討論課就可以擬訂出來?討論裏的意見一定很多,能不能有共識,是不是貼近事實都不太會影響最後的總結報告的交出,這個討論也許帶出很多的知識,很漂亮的邏輯,但那個根是空泛的,這種討論經常成為一個邏輯推理,情感抒發的舞台,而無法成為一個可 執行的王國大略.
大家試著想像,長執會今天聽了你的論述之後,慚愧至極,決定集體辭職,並將教會決策大任以你的論術為依歸,立刻改選你為決策成員,但你必須立刻將你的論述作成教義,修正信條,正式發文全球教會遵守.正式的公文後面蓋上大小章,總負責人的名字就是你!所有當初參與討論的同靈都同聲喝采,他們都引頸期盼著看到教會 在真理上,組織上的突破,等著當初一起奮鬥的你發出公文,"聖靈充滿不一定要說方言","服從基督,而不是服從教會組織",一只公文,輕如鴻毛,懸繫萬人的靈命. 這個文,你敢發嗎? 你...確定嗎?
各位還認為現在,就是各種狀況發生的"現在",主耶穌自己還親自作教會的頭?一 切的事祂都瞭然於胸,一切發展都在祂的掌握之中?還是認為主人出國去了,這一切祂都不知悉,只有將來回國時才能來算總帳.所以我們的同靈急死了,深怕大僕人搞壞了祂的教會! 後者雖也可以從聖經找到一點依據,但那個點的顯露不夠完整, 整體看,聖經中顯示主耶穌"現在"就真是教會的頭.簡單講個見證,有同靈在靈恩會時看到主耶穌身穿白衣穿插在長執人員中間,替前面求聖靈的同靈按手,主耶穌手一按下,那被按手的信徒立時說出方言來;本會兩位同靈一組,挨家挨戶發佈道會傳單,外邦路人卻看見三個人,第一個是身穿白衣的人,是祂先去按門鈴.
神的國是民主政體?我的理解卻是kingdom.因為領首的是一位萬王之王,永遠為王 ,強調他的權柄,榮耀.這裏面雖有愛,但不等於近世紀來大家熟習的民主政治.西方愛的教育裏勾畫的那種父子關係,也不完全等於我們與父,真神的關係.我們所熟習的政治體制與父子親情的模式,在整個人類歷史裏都只是極微小的一小段時間,當我真切的領悟到自己所處的時空是如此的狹隘,我就不敢以這一點有限的理解,去描繪神國的型態與實際.距離很重要,人太渺小,需要時間與距離來幫忙,神的國,新約講講就好了,主耶穌還不是權威嗎? 當然是權威,但神還是預備了一本厚厚的舊約.比照,對應,牽引,大距離,長時段,人的理解(understanding,合和本 譯"悟性")才能領悟.
再丟一個問題讓大家動動腦,查考聖經.跟我們也有切身關係,就是"祭司".
祭司的主要任務是替民贖罪,那麼將來主耶穌再臨,已睡的信徒復活,與在世的信徒一起被提,變化.審判由神的家開始,一直到白色的大寶座前全人類的審判結束, 義人得生,往新天地;罪人與污穢之人,繼假先知,獸,龍之後,被丟到燒著硫磺的火湖裏,從創世以來的人都照著他在世所行的一切受審受報,至此陰間也已沒有存在的必要,一樣被丟到燒著硫磺的火湖裏,連"死"也丟進去了.(這火湖真的威力驚人,撒但是靈,陰間暫且理解為一種空間或狀態,死是一種狀態或有主格的權柄,這些非物質的東西,這火湖全都能滅盡了,這可不是我們現在能理解的火).至此,人不 再犯罪,既然沒有罪,也不再犯罪,那麼那時還需要祭司嗎?
我目前的understanding,大的答案是:祭司仍存,主耶穌就是大祭司,它是永遠為大祭司,我們也是祭司.這時祭司無罪可贖,自己與民都聖潔像神的長子耶穌一樣,那祭司的職任為什麼存留呢?
如果,我們只把注意力集中在新約(教會時期),單就這個問題的邏輯,就會難以正確看清.把新舊約裏關於祭司的職任,新約裏對祭司的闡明,拉長時間與距離看,注意使徒不經意的帶出關於來世的描述,便知道祭司在新天新地仍然常存,如果理解了在無罪的新天新地裏為什麼祭司仍然常存,再回來看在教會時期(救恩時期)裏的祭司(就是信徒,在教會裡現在的我們),就知道當怎樣行了.再細節一點的"為什麼",大家試著查考 默想看看.
舉這例子,是回到開篇的嘆喂,距離很重要,一直近距離看,糾結!拉遠距離看,整體看,結構出來了,方向清析了.糾結的那一個點看不清,就往包含著它的結構去看,再看不清,再遠一點,大的東西總是比較清晰的.一個點是屬於那個結構下的脈絡,它是那個局部結構的某一種角度的表達,你不能用點來推翻一個面.用上層的主旨來抓其內部一點的意義就不容易偏失.現實的問題,默想神的話,查考聖經,都是如此.
一點分享,不同大多數同靈的意見,沒有惡意,只是要把話寫婉轉太累,直言了,若讓同靈有冒犯的感覺,懇請原諒,不要放心上.只是想提供多一條思路.晚安.
Thanks, Roger, for your feedback, but I'm afraid you've misunderstood some of the things I've said in my previous comment.
1. If you re-read the examples I used to explain the difference between accepting and understanding the truth, you'd realise that I actualy agree with the points you tried to make about truth. ie God's truth is not disbutable and will not change. When I said "to understand a truth", though, it is usually to "know the reason behind", which our Lord did not explicitly reveal in the bible. In fact, I will even say that "understandings/knowledge" are something that have not been directly spoken by God before. But does it mean that understanding/knowledge come only from human minds? Not necessarily! understanding/knowledge can also come from the guidance of the Holy Spirit because our Lord promised that the Holy Spirit will guide us to understand all truth...to know the reason behind...to know the mystery of God...The question is -- who/what do you rely on to understand God's truths? logic/rationale? outsiders' words? or the Holy Spirit?
2. I don't see anything bad to say that bible contains words of God, words of men and words of Satan. Words of God refer to what our Lord spoke about that got written down either inside or outside of the bible. Eg "I am the creator of heavens and earth..."; "I am who I am"; "I am God Almighty; walk before me and be blameless", "you need to be baptised with your head bowed..." (words of God outside of bible to TJC's early worker), etc. Words of Satan -- "Has God indeed said, 'you shall not eat of every tree of the garden'"?; "You will not surely die...."; "If you are the son of God, command these stones become bead...", etc. I'm sure you can see what I meant now? If so, whose words should we believe?
God bless,
Dan
Caleb兄，别来无恙，愿神赐你平安！
首先，我很乐意读每一位同灵在这平台里的分享,包括你这一编。
我看了两遍，但悟性不好看不出你真正的建议，所以只能猜测猜测。
你是不是在建议说讨论组织的问题应该留给当权者去讨论决定？其他的人即使想從真理的角度去看这问题，所能达到的仅仅是抒发抒发个人的情绪，放一放空抢空口说白话，阿Q一下！
我觉得你说的这句话蛮有趣的“大家試著想像，長執會今天聽了你的論述之後。慚愧至極，決定集體辭職”。我的直觉告诉我说，这些掌权的人，没有一个会辞职的；我想我能了解在这里的一群同灵，没有一个会建议把不好的薅出来，更不会去逼任何人辞职！
希望你可以再加多一些实质的建议，也好让我学习一些组织的学问！
我对组织的问题並没有特别去研究，所以我不敢做什么建议，只好默默地学习。
然而我敢公开地说“聖靈充滿不一定要說方言”，就好像Pr YM一样。因为有圣经为证！除了使徒行传2章之外，其他被圣灵充满的都没有说方言。请查考以下的例子。我想你应该也看过你所带头的讨论栏里小弟发表的一点分享：新生命的歷程：灵性成长时会碰到的危机。请分析其对与错！
Luke 1:15 He is never to take wine or other fermented drink, and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit even from birth.
Luke 1:41 When Elizabeth heard Mary's greeting, the baby leaped in her womb, and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit.
Luke 1:67-68 67 His father Zechariah was filled with the Holy Spirit and prophesied: 68 "Praise be to the Lord, the God of Israel,
Acts 2:4 All of them were filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues as the Spirit enabled them.
Acts 6:8 Now Stephen, a man full of God's grace and power, did great wonders and miraculous signs among the people.
Acts 7:55 But Stephen, full of the Holy Spirit, looked up to heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God.
Acts 4:8 Then Peter, filled with the Holy Spirit, said to them: "Rulers and elders of the people!
Acts 4:31 After they prayed, the place where they were meeting was shaken. And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and spoke the word of God boldly.
Acts 9:17-19 17 Then Ananias went to the house and entered it. Placing his hands on Saul, he said, "Brother Saul, the Lord-Jesus, who appeared to you on the road as you were coming here — has sent me so that you may see again and be filled with the Holy Spirit." 18 Immediately, something like scales fell from Saul's eyes, and he could see again. He got up and was baptized, 19 and after taking some food, he regained his strength.
Acts 13:9-11 9 Then Saul, who was also called Paul, filled with the Holy Spirit, looked straight at Elymas and said, 10 "You are a child of the devil and an enemy of everything that is right! You are full of all kinds of deceit and trickery. Will you never stop perverting the right ways of the Lord?
平安！
Dear Daniel,
I sincerly apologise for mistaken your message.
I am, however, still believe that all biblical truths must be authenticated by words of God or by the Bible. Words of men cannot be truth unless it is attested by words of God or the Bible.
You stated in your opening paragraph that you think the resolution of the Jerusalem council meeting was based on James' words (opinion) and believe that it was more like a compromise of God's truth. On what basis then you accept Paul Wee's pronouncement to be the words of God outside the Bible? How has this pronouncement been attested?
God bless
Pages