Lists can be good and bad. I don't use a list when I go to the grocery store and I should. I come home with stuff that apparently isn't useful unless someone calls out "Who's got the party snacks!?" Then I'm your man! When I get home my wife gives me that loving, but "Oh well, he can't help it, he just doesn't know any better" look. However, I also buy her flowers nearly every time I'm there. I would never put flowers on a list. When I see them, I think of her, and so I get them. This seems to make up for a lot!

The church can have the same kind of good news bad news when it comes to lists. There is a kind of science involved in the church and we need lists. We need lists of people, budgets, calendar items, prioritized values, and lists of things to do. That's just for starters. There are however, an equal number of things that you can't implement, capture, sustain, or create just because they are on a list. I'm referring to things like the power and anointing of God, the heart of someone caring for another person, raw momentum, a positive culture and ministry environment, or burden for the lost.

With those thoughts as a sort of condition or qualification, I'd like to offer you a list of seven essential qualities of a local church. The stronger each of them is, the stronger and healthier your church is overall. Take a look at this list and think about how you would evaluate your church in each area. Which ones are strong? Which ones need improvement? Which one will you commit to work on this month?

VIBRANT SPIRITUALITY

This list isn't in order. But if it was, I'd have to start here. Vibrant spirituality involves things like passionate worship, robust prayer and a genuine eagerness to live the life of Christ.

Dependency upon God is the overarching theme. When we truly know that God is really God, we know we are not in control and He is. We also know that He is a loving God who cares about us and wants what is best for us. We gain significant experiential clarity in all this through worship and prayer. Ultimately our lives continue to conform more and more to the likeness of Christ. This allows your discipleship process to grow deeper and have greater impact.

Does your church have set-aside and dedicated times of prayer? Do you experience a God-centered intensity in your worship? Do you have a sense that your congregation, in general, desires to live a biblical lifestyle and shows evidence of the fruit of the Spirit? Does your process of discipleship carry the passion to infuse vibrant spirituality in the lives of people?

ENTHUSIASTIC VOLUNTEER SERVICE

This is the muscle of your church. The more volunteer service is exercised, the stronger your church becomes. You probably have read a number of books and articles on this subject, but let me encourage you not to let up on the intentionally focused energy that you invest into raising up volunteers.

Volunteer recruitment isn't about getting the work of the church done. It's about developing the people by helping them find their sweet spot of service in God's Kingdom. Nothing is more fun that watching a volunteer get excited and become productive in things that matter for eternity. The key components included in volunteer service are recruiting, training, encouraging, setting expectations, communicating, shepherding, and expressing gratitude.

Let me ask a blunt question. How many volunteers are active in your church? Benchmarks are changing some in this arena, but a good rule of thumb is to aim for 50% or better of your adult worship attendance involved in volunteer service. Do you make it easy for people to get involved in ministry? Do you train your people well so they are equipped to be successful in ministry? Do you place good leaders in charge of ministries so people will want to be on their teams? Two great questions to ask about your volunteers is 1. Are they happy? 2. Are they productive?

TRUSTED LEADERSHIP

In this election year we all know what it means to feel trust or lack of trust about political candidates. You don't have to be a leadership expert to get that. Your entire congregation intuitively knows, at all times, if they trust you as a leader. By leader, I'm including not only pastor, but the staff, board and key leaders.

Leaders can and will make mistakes, but a violation of trust is different and difficult to recover from. Integrity, character, morals, ethics are all in play when it comes to trust. But so is competence. People will trust you only so far if you are a good and Godly leader. They also want to know that you are leading with wisdom. They want to know that you are headed in the right direction, and know how to get there. The people need to know that you are making good decisions.

Do you experience the freedom (and commensurate responsibility) that comes with being trusted as a spiritual leader? As you empower the people to lead, do you sense an equal empowerment from the people for you to dream, cast-vision and lead on? Are you living a life of full integrity? Are you a good leader and continuing to become a better leader? Are you confident about where you are headed and how you will get there?

EXPRESSION OF COMPASSION

Helping the poor, the hungry, and people in need is just the tip of the iceberg. There are nearly limitless possibilities to show compassion to those outside your church. It's not so much about which cause(s) you choose to help, (you can't choose them all), but the heart behind your choice. God honors all your efforts to help those in need. It is likely that God has blessed you greatly, and He desires that you do the same for others.

The healthy church is motivated and fully engaged in these matters of giving itself away to others in need. As you follow God's lead, you step into the gap where perhaps no one else will. It's not just about writing checks. The more people who get involved personally the better. These ministry endeavors are life-changing in both directions. Those who give and those who receive.

What organizations is your church supporting both financially and with people who show up to serve? Do you sense that you are making a measurable difference in the community because of your efforts? Does your congregation get excited about these opportunities and eagerly respond?

GENEROSITY IN FINANCES

There is no getting around the reality of money. At the writing of this article the government is debating and attempting to close the deal on a 700 billion dollar bailout. That decision will dramatically shape our country's economic future no matter which way it goes. You will not be making decisions for that much money in your church, but you carry just as much responsibility.

Leading a congregation to become a generous church is a monumental task. In some ways (I acknowledge this is a generalization) your church's giving is a statement of its overall maturity and discipleship investment. Let's be blunt. Mature Christians give. In many churches, they give generously. Some of the generosity is connected to vision and momentum - the people believe in what's going on. But even in average churches, mature believers help shoulder the load financially. They give not as if it's a bill to pay, but because they love the Lord and follow the scriptural direction to give.

The state of the economy impacts all churches, and this is a rough economy. But God's people can come through, and in generous churches they do. The more generous you are as a leader, and committed to give yourself away as a church body, the more people will be inspired in their generosity.

What are you doing to inspire your people to give to Kingdom work? In what ways are you teaching about the blessing of seeking to find and live God's heart in this matter? As a leader, are you personally generous? Is good stewardship a matter of serious and devoted prayer in your church?

GENUINE COMMUNITY

Loving relationships in a local church not only reflects the heart of God, but also attracts people who are spiritually searching. Love is a universal language. Caring about people is something everyone understands. Finding a place to belong is something everyone wants.

Negotiating life alone is difficult. Experiencing life without being loved is nearly impossible. Regardless of what kind of church you are, authentic relationship is something you can offer the world. Some churches meet this need through Sunday School. Many churches meet this need through small groups. The method doesn't matter as much as the core value and leadership behind the effort.

Does your congregation demonstrate a loving and caring attitude toward one another? (An attitude that leads to action.) Do you observe honesty, trust, laughter, and generally happy people? Is there an overall sense of unity and quickness to forgive? Is gossip at a minimum?

SALVATION ANTICIPATD

It seems like I've saved the best for last. As I mentioned, this list of seven qualities is not in order. But with the same passion I began with spiritual vitality, I'm closing with the bottom line - evangelism. Call it by whatever name you want. Go after it however you like. When it's all said and done your church's purpose, in essence, is the Great Commission.

Your congregation should get excited about nothing more than people coming to Christ. It's a party in heaven, so why not here on earth? I hope your people clap and cheer as people say yes to Jesus! Every baptism, though a beautiful and meaningful sacrament, should be cause to celebrate!

If you anticipate that people will be saved, you begin to live that way, pray that way, direct finances that way, and people will be saved. Teaching the gospel clearly, giving invitation, and praying like crazy are the basics. How are you doing? How is the visitor flow in your church? The number of visitors is a strong evidence of your church's heart for evangelism. Are your people inviting unchurched people to church? Do you have a great class for new Christians? Do you put effort and energy to continued discipleship for growing Christians?

I've never seen a church with all seven of these factors in good shape not grow at least at a modest rate. And the people love the church! It's not about a perfect church, but one that is alive, healthy, and living for the purposes of God. How is your church doing?

A - Almighty, Advocate, Alpha, Amen, Angel, Ancient of Days, Anointed, Author, Atoner, Anointer, Avenger.

B - Begotten, Beloved, Beautiful, Blessed, Branch, Bread of Life, Bridegroom, Beginning, Bright and Morning Star, Brightness of the Father's Glory.

C - Compassion, Caring, Creator, Captain, Chief Cornerstone, Christ, Consolation of Israel, Covenant, Counselor, Comforter.

D - Daysman, Deliverer, Desire of Nations, Diadem, Door, Defender.

E - Elect, Emmanuel, Everlasting Father, Express Image, Eternal.

F - Finisher, First Fruit, Faithful, Forerunner, First and Last, Foundation, Friend, Fortress, Fairest of Ten Thousand.

G - Glorious God, Gift, Governor, Gracious, Good, Great, Gentle, Guide, Governor.

H - Holy, Hearer, Harmless, Humble, Heir, Healer, High Priest, Head, Hope, High Tower, Highest, Honest, Helper.

I - Image of God, Invisible, Invincible, Immortal, Interceder, Immutable, Intercessor.

J - Judge, Just, Jealous, Jehovah-Jireh.

K - Kind, King, Knowing.

L - Love, Lamb, Light, Life, Leader, Lord, Lily of the Valley, Lion of Judah, Living Word, Long-Suffering, Lover, Lovely, Lamp.

M - Master, Mediator, Merciful, Minister, Mighty, Majesty.

N - Near

O - Ominipresent, Only Begotten Son, Omega, Offering, Offerer

P - Prince, Patient, Prophet, Propitation, Priest, Passover, Purifer, Powerful, Present, Patient.

Q - Quickener

R - Righteous, Right, Redeemer, Refiner, Resurrection, Rock, Refuge, Ransom, Root, Ruler, Revealer, Refining Fire, Rock of Ages, Rose of Sharon.

S - Sacrifice, Sovereign, Slow to Anger, Strength, Shepherd, Servant, Spirit, Surety, Safety, Sanctification, Shield, Saviour, Stone, Sufferer.

T - Truth, Teacher, Tender-Hearted, Treasure.

U - Upholder, Unsearchable, Unerring, Uplifter, Unchanging.

V - Victorious.

W - Wonderful, Way, Wisdom, Worthy

Y - Yea and Amen, Yoke Fellow.

Z - Zion, Zealous.

"Consider for a few moments the enormous aesthetic claim of its (Christian theology - PG) chief contemporary rival - what we may loosely call the Scientific Outlook...Supposing this to be a myth, is it not one of the finest myths which human imagination has yet produced? The play is preceded by the most austere of all preludes: the infinite void, and matter restlessly moving to bring forth it knows not what. Then, by the millionth millionth chance - what tragic irony - the conditions at one point of space and time bubble up into that tiny fermentation which is the beginning of life. Everything seems to be against the infant hero of our drama - just as everything seems against the youngest son or ill-used stepdaughter at the opening of a fairy-tale. But life somehow wins through. With infinite suffering, against all but insuperable obstacles, it spreads, it breeds, it complicates itself: from the amoeba up to the plant, up to the reptile, up to the mammal. We glance briefly at the age of monsters. Dragons prowl the earth, devour one another and die. Then comes the theme of the younger son and the ugly duckling once more. As the weak, tiny spark of life began amidst the huge hostilities of the inanimate, so now again, amidst the beasts that are far larger and stronger than he, there comes forth a little naked, shivering, cowering creature, shuffling, not yet erect, promising nothing: the product of another millionth millionth chance. Yet somehow he thrives. He becomes the Cave Man with his club and his flints, muttering and growling over his enemies' bones, dragging his screaming mate by her hair (I could never quite make out why), tearing his children to pieces in fierce jealousy till one of them is old enough to tear him, cowering before the terrible gods whom he has created in his own image. But these are only growing pains. Wait till the next Act. There he is becoming true Man. He learns to master nature. Science comes and dissipates the superstitions of his infancy. More and more he becomes the controller of his own fate. Passing hastily over the present (for it is a mere nothing by the time-scale we are using), you follow him on into the future. See him in the last Act, though not the last scene, of this great mystery. A race of demigods now rule the planet - and perhaps more than the planet - for eugenics have made certain that only demigods will be born, and psycho-analysis that none of them shall lose or smirch his divinity, and communism that all which divinity requires shall be ready to their hands. Man has ascended his throne. Hence forward he has nothing to do but to practice virtue, to grow in wisdom, to be happy. And now, mark the final stroke of genius. If the myth stopped at that point, it might be a little pathetic (sic). It would lack the highest grandeur of which human imagination is capable. The last scene reverses all. We have the Twilight of the Gods. All this time, silently, unceasingly, out of all reach of human power, Nature, the old enemy, has been steadily gnawing away. The sun will cool - all suns will cool - the whole universe will run down. Life (every form of life) will be banished, without hope of return, from every inch of infinite space. All ends in nothingness, and "universal darkness covers all." The pattern of myth thus becomes one of the noblest we can conceive. It is the pattern of many Elizabethan tragedies, where the protagonist's career can be represented by a slowly ascending and then rapidly falling curve, with its highest point in Act IV. You see him climbing up and up, then blazing in his bright meridian, then finally overwhelmed in ruin.

Such a world-drama appeals to every part of us. The early struggles of the hero (a theme delightfully doubled, played first by life, and then by man) appeals to our generosity. His future exaltation gives scope to a reasonable optimism; for the tragic close is so very distant that you need not often think of it--we work with millions of years. And the tragic close it self just gives that irony, that grandeur, which calls forth our defiance, and without which all the rest might cloy. There is a beauty in this myth which well deserves better poetic handling than it has yet received: I hope some great genius will yet crystallize it before the incessant stream of philosophic change carries it all away. I am speaking, of course, of the beauty it has whether you believe it or not. There I can speak from experience: for I, who believe less than half of what it tells me about the past, and less than nothing of what it tells me about the future, am deeply moved when I contemplate it. The only other story--unless, indeed, it is an embodiment of the same story--which similarly moves me is the Nibelung's Ring. Enden sah ich die Welt.

We cannot, therefore, turn down Theology, simply because it does not avoid being poetical. All world views yield poetry to those who believe them by the mere fact of being believed. And nearly all have certain poetical merits whether you believe them or not. This is what we should expect. Man is a poetical animal and touches nothing which he does not adorn.

There are, however, two other lines of thought which might lead us to call Theology a mere poetry, and these I must now consider. In the first place, it certainly contains elements similar to those which we find in many early, and even savage, religions. And those elements in the early religions may now seem to us to be poetical. The question here is rather complicated. We now regard the death and return of Balder as a poetical idea, a myth. We are invited to infer thence that the death and resurrection of Christ is a poetical idea, a myth. But we are not really starting with the datum "Both are poetical" and thence arguing "Therefore both are false". Part of the poetical aroma which hangs about Balder is, I believe, due to the fact that we have already come to disbelieve in him. So that disbelief not poetical experience, is the real starting point of the argument. But this is perhaps an over-subtlety, certainly a subtlety, and I will leave it on one side.

What light is really thrown on the truth or falsehood of Christian Theology by the occurrence of similar ideas in Pagan religion. I think the answer was very well given a fortnight ago by Mr. Brown. Supposing, for purposes of argument, that Christianity is true, then it could avoid all coincidence with other religions only on the supposition that all other religions are one hundred per cent erroneous. To which, you remember, Professor Price replied by agreeing with Mr. Brown and saying: "Yes. From these resemblances you may conclude not 'so much the worse for the Christians' but 'so much the better for the Pagans'." The truth is that the resemblances tell nothing either for or against the truth of Christian Theology. If you start from the assumption that the Theology is false, the resemblances are quite consistent with that assumption. One would expect creatures of the same sort, faced with the same universe, to make the same false guess more than once. But if you start with the assumption that the Theology is true, the resemblances fit in equally well. Theology, while saying that a special illumination has been vouchsafed to Christians and (earlier) to Jews, also says that there is some reason. The picture so often painted of Christians huddling together on an ever narrower strip of beach while the incoming tide of "Science" mounts higher and higher, corresponds to nothing in my own experience.
That grand myth which I asked you to admire a few minutes ago is not for me a hostile novelty breaking in on my traditional beliefs. On the contrary, that cosmology is what I started from. Deepening distrust and final abandonment of it long preceded my conversion to Christianity. Long before I believed Theology to be true I had already decided that the popular scientific picture at any rate was false. One absolutely central inconsistency ruins it; it is the one we touched on a fortnight ago. The whole picture professes to depend on inferences from observed facts. Unless inference is valid, the whole picture disappears. Unless we can be sure that reality in the remotest nebula or the remotest part obeys the thought--laws of the human scientist here and now in his laboratory-in other words, unless Reason is an absolute--all is in ruins. Yet those who ask me to believe this world picture also ask me to believe that Reason is simply the unforeseen and unintended by-product of mindless matter at one stage of its endless and aimless becoming. Here is flat contradiction. They ask me at the same moment to accept a conclusion and to discredit the only testimony on which that conclusion can be based. The difficulty is to me a fatal one; and the fact that when you put it to many scientists, far from having an answer, they seem not even to understand what the difficulty is, assures me that I have not found a mare's nest but detected a radical disease in their whole mode of thought from the very beginning. The man who has once understood the situation is compelled henceforth to regard the scientific cosmology as being, in principle, a myth; though no doubt a great many true particulars have been worked into it. (1)

It is not irrelevant, in considering the mythical character of this cosmology to notice that the two great imaginative expressions of it are earlier than the evidence: Keats's Hyperion and the Nibelung's Ring are pre-Darwinian works.

After that it is hardly worth noticing minor difficulties. Yet these are many and serious. The Bergsonian critique of orthodox Darwinism is not easy to answer. More disquieting still is Professor D. M. S. Watson's defence. "Evolution itself," he wrote, "is accepted by zoologists not because it has been observed to occur or... can be proved by logically coherent evidence to be true, but because the only alternative, special creation, is clearly incredible." Has it come to that? Does the whole vast structure of modern naturalism depend not on positive evidence but simply on an a priori metaphysical prejudice. Was it devised not to get in facts but to keep out God .Even, however, if Evolution in the strict biological sense has some better grounds than Professor Watson suggests--and I can't help thinking it must--we should distinguish Evolution in this strict sense from what may be called the universal evolutionism of modern thought. By universal evolutionism I mean the belief that the very formula of universal process is from imperfect to perfect, from small beginnings to great endings, from the rudimentary to the elaborate: the belief which makes people find it natural to think that morality springs from savage taboos, adult sentiment from infantile sexual maladjustments, thought from instinct, mind from matter, organic from inorganic, cosmos from chaos. This is perhaps the deepest habit of mind in the contemporary world. It seems to me immensely implausible, because it makes the general course of nature so very unlike those parts of nature we can observe. You remember the old puzzle as to whether the owl came from the egg or the egg from the owl. The modern acquiescence in universal evolutionism is a kind of optical illusion, produced by attending exclusively to the owls emergence from the egg. We are taught from childhood to notice how the perfect oak grows from the acorn and to forget that the acorn itself was dropped by a perfect oak. We are reminded constantly that the adult human being was an embryo, never that the life of the embryo came from two adult human beings. We love to notice that the express engine of today is the descendant of the "rocket;" we do not equally remember that the " Rocket" springs not from some even more rudimentary engine, but from something much more perfect and complicated than itself-namely, a man of genius. The obviousness or naturalness which most people seem to find in the idea of emergent evolution thus seems to be a pure hallucination.

On these grounds and others like them one is driven to think that whatever else may be true, the popular scientific cosmology at any rate is certainly not. I left that ship not at the call of poetry but because I thought it could not keep afloat. Something like philosophical idealism or Theism must, at the very worst, be less untrue than that. And idealism turned out, when you took it seriously, to be disguised Theism. And once you accepted Theism you could not ignore the claims of Christ. And when you examined them it appeared to me that you could adopt no middle position. Either he was a lunatic, or God. And He was not a lunatic.

I was taught at school, when I had done a sum, to "prove my answer." The proof or verification of my Christian answer to the cosmic sum is this. When I accept Theology I may find difficulties, at this point or that, in harmonising it with some particular truths which are embedded in the mythical cosmology derived from science. But I can get in, or allow for, science as a whole. Granted that Reason is prior to matter and that the light of that primal Reason illuminates finite minds, I can understand how men should come, by observation and inference, to know a lot about the universe they live in. If, on the other hand, I swallow the scientific cosmology as a whole, then not only can I not fit in Christianity, but I cannot even fit in science. If minds are wholly dependent on brains, and brains on biochemistry, and biochemistry (in the long run) on the meaningless flux of the atoms, I cannot understand how the thought of those minds should have any more significance than the sound of the wind in the trees. And this is to me the final test. This is how I distinguish dreaming and waking. When I am awake I can, in some degree, account for and study my dream. The dragon that pursued me last night can be fitted into my waking world. I know that there are such things as dreams: I know that I had eaten an indigestible dinner: I know that a man of my reading might be expected to dream of dragons. But while in the nightmare I could not have fitted in my waking experience. The waking world is judged more real because it can thus contain the dreaming world: the dreaming world is judged less real because it cannot contain the waking one. For the same reason I am certain that in passing from the scientific point of view to the theological, I have passed from dream to waking. Christian theology can fit in science, art, morality, and the sub-Christian religions. The scientific point of view cannot fit in any of these things, not even science itself. I believe in Christianity as I believe that the Sun has risen not only because I see it but because by it I see everything else. -- The Oxford Socratic Club, 1944. pp. 154-165

Notes:

1. Quoted in Science and the B.B.C., Nineteenth Century, April, 1943.

　　以赛亚先知曾沉痛地写下了耶和华神对以色列人绝望的记录：

“现今你去，在他们面前将这话刻在版上，写在书上，以便传留后世，直到永永远远。因为他们是悖逆的百姓，说谎的儿女，不肯听从耶和华训诲的儿女。他们对先见说，不要望见不吉利的事，对先知说，不要向我们讲正直的话，要向我们讲柔和的话，言虚幻的事，你们要离弃正道，偏离直路。不要在我们面前再题说以色列的圣者。所以以色列的圣者如此说，因为你们藐视这训诲的话，倚赖欺压和乖僻，以此为可靠的。故此这罪孽在你们身上，好像将要破裂凸出来的高墙，顷刻之间，忽然坍塌。要被打碎，好像把窑匠的瓦器打碎，毫不顾惜，甚至碎块中找不到一片，可用以从炉内取火，从池中舀水。”（赛三○：8-14）

　　以赛亚代表耶和华神向以色列传的信息，言者谆谆，听者藐藐。他们不但不理会先知的训诲，反而还向先知提出了相反的建言：不必只抱持悲观，不要只讲真话，要向他们讲些好听的冠冕堂皇的话，为他们编造一些虚妄的故事。要传道者另辟蹊径，避开上帝。为他们塑造一种虚幻的信仰。使他们一面仍可沉湎于罪中之乐，一面却又可憧憬看未来天堂的美景，而乐此不疲。这种一面营造虚拟信仰的幻觉，一面浸淫现实罪中的享乐，自古已然，于今为烈。

　　我永不能忘记在一个教会中讲道后，一位资深的长者，趋前与我握手致意，他对我说：“牧师，你能不能给我们一点希望。”言下之意表示讲道中提到灵性的标准太高，无法实践。应该将信仰的标准再降低些，尽量体恤人的软弱与现实的需要。这样人们才有希望。他当时表示的态度很诚恳，使我感触极深。

　　传道者应当体恤人性的软弱，将圣经中的道德标准尽量放低，以俯就人的需求吗？讲道要变成一种虚伪的安慰，让人的“良心”，可以“平安”吗？体察今日的教会，这种需要普遍存在，牧会者不希望人数减少，或多或少地会屈从这种需求；只讲天堂福，不提十架苦。只讲福音，不提律法。只讲神爱世人，不讲认罪悔改。只强调圣经中的某些应许，不讲信徒应落实信心的责任。反正基督已经钉在十字架上为我们死了，我们只要同意这些信仰，便可“得救”，将来稳上天堂。至于基督对门徒的呼召与传福音的使命，兹事体大，有专业的传道者去完成，信徒只要奉献些微金钱支持，便可告慰。眼下且享罪中之乐。主日照常参加敬拜，奉献，祈祷如仪，便已稳取上天堂的资格了。

　　为使这等人取得理论上，神学上的根据，早已有“神学家”提出主张：“上帝是爱，只要相信，不需要认罪悔改，人人可以上天堂”的新神学观了。

　　但这种虚幻的信仰，能为这样的信众筑一座“天堂”吗？先知以赛亚显然并没有接受他们的建言，并且提出了严重的警告：“故此这罪孽在你们身上，好像将要破裂凸出来的高墙，顷刻之间，忽然坍塌。要被打碎，好像把窑匠的瓦器打碎，毫不顾惜，甚至碎块中找不到一片，可用以从炉内取火，从池中舀水。”哀哉以色列民，由古至今，都离弃正道，偏离直路，他们所倚靠的仍为以色列圣者以外的帮助。所刻意营造的也还是一种虚拟的平安。

　　放眼今日广大的信徒与教会，有许多都还是活在这种虚幻的信仰中，在等待着顷刻之间，忽然坍塌之前的片刻幻灭的安乐。因此要呼吁当代的传道者们，应师范以赛亚的风骨，峻拒虚幻信仰者的建言，对教会与信徒说真话，因为这些话早已刻在版上，写在书上（圣经）了。打破虚幻信仰者的迷梦，使他们面对圣经的真理。

　　作神的工人，有一个很重要的责任，就是要把圣经本身的真理带出来。我们自己必须明白圣经，然后靠圣灵给我们的恩赐，把圣经本身的真理传给别人。

一． 耶稣考问门徒对祂的认识

　　马太福音第十六章记载耶稣在该撒利亚腓立比的地方考问门徒：你们跟我这么久了，我在你们中间传福音行神迹，我也把我的生活行事的原则表现给你们看，让你们知道我是谁。那么，人说我是谁？这是个很重要的问题。一个跟耶稣的人如果不知道耶稣是谁，那是盲从；我们要跟一个人一定要晓得他是谁，否则就是盲目地跟着他，那前途是黑暗的。当耶稣对门徒说：“人说我人子是谁？”其实包括考问门徒的意见。我们常常以为“人”是不包括自己在内，好像自己不是人一样。我们常常祷告说：“主啊，你打发人去传福音。”那自己不必去，因为我不是人；我们也祷告说：“主啊，你感动人奉献。”又好像自己不是人，不必感动似的。耶稣考问门徒对祂的认识，可是所有的门徒对耶稣没有认识，因此就按道听途说，说耶稣是以利亚，耶利米或先知中的一位；这都是别人对耶稣的认识，而不是自己对耶稣的认识。
　　 我在念神学时也面对着这样的危机。我们念神学时要念很多的参考书，然后我们说，某某神学家说耶稣是谁。那自己呢？好像我们都不知道。这是神学教育里一个很严重的危机；许多神学家常说某某人说什么，什么书上说什么，但自己对耶稣一点都不知道。我们真是要祷告，求神让我们读圣经时能够认识圣经的中心人物是谁，圣经的主题是什么，要不然我们真是白白读书，传道的时候也是讲一些别人的话，别人的意见，而不是真理。
　　 因此，耶稣再次问门徒：你们说我是谁？难道你们不是人吗？为什么你们要以别人对我的认识来回答呢？这时十二个门徒只有彼得开口说话了，说：“主啊，你是基督，是永生上帝的儿子。”为什么彼得会这样讲呢？耶稣说这不是彼得领会的，而是天上的父指示彼得的。
　　 门徒听见彼得承认耶稣是永生上帝的儿子以后，他们对耶稣到底还是不明白，所以这件事以后，耶稣带三个门徒到山上去，把自己的荣耀显明给他们看。

过了六天，耶稣带着彼得，雅各，和雅各的兄弟约翰，暗暗的上了高山，就在他们面前变了形像，脸面明亮如日头，衣裳洁白如光。忽然，有摩西，以利亚向他们显现，同耶稣说话。彼得对耶稣说：“主啊，我们在这里真好！你若愿意，我就在这里搭三座棚，一座为你，一座为摩西，一座为以利亚。”说话之间，忽然有一朵光明的云彩遮盖他们，且有声音从云彩里出来，说：“这是我的爱子，我所喜悦的。你们要听祂！”门徒听见，就俯伏在地，极其害怕。耶稣进前来，摸他们，说：“起来，不要害怕！”他们举目不见一人，只见耶稣在那里。（太一七：1-8）

　　 “变了形像”，英文译作：“transfigured”，就是“把里面的形像表达出来”；不是祂突然间变得不一样，而是把祂原来有的表达出来。有话说：“在于内，而形于外。”耶稣本身是神，耶稣本身是真理，本身是荣耀的上帝， “从来没有人看见上帝，只有在父怀里的独生子将祂表明出来。” （约一：18）耶稣也在约翰福音多次提到“父在我里面，我在父里面。”所以耶稣基督在山上是把祂里面的神性，神的形像和荣耀，显明出来。

二． 耶稣是圣经的主题

　　我们读圣经，必须求圣灵给我们智慧，读圣经任何一处，要看见耶稣基督。

耶稣对他们说：“这就是我从前与你们同在之时所告诉你们的话说：摩西的律法，先知的书，和诗篇上所记的，凡指着我的话都必须应验。”于是耶稣开他们的心窍，使他们能明白圣经，又对他们说：“照经上所写的，基督必受害，第三日从死里复活，并且人要奉祂的名传悔改，赦罪的道，从耶路撒冷起直传到万邦。”（路二四：44-47）

　　这段经文记载，耶稣基督提到摩西的律法，先知书跟诗篇上对祂的记载都要应验，换句话说，摩西五经，先知书与诗篇都是讲论耶稣，耶稣是这许多书卷的中心题目，里面许多对耶稣的预言都要应验。有部英文参考书Thompson Chain Bible，将旧约里面有关耶稣的预言列出来，共有三百六十多处。旧约所有关于耶稣基督的预言都要应验。
　　在耶稣向门徒显现以后，彼得又说话了，“主啊，我们在这里真好，我们搭三座棚，一座为你，一座为摩西，一座为以利亚。”
　　 彼得这个看法跟犹太教的背景有关系。犹太教常常分派别，你们是摩西派，你们是耶利米派，我们是以利亚派，你们是但以理派。这是人类的社会形式；但是我们在神的国度里，只有耶稣。可惜在教会的历史上还是出现好多宗派，我听说过也研究过这许多宗派，发现那不过是人为的机构，不是真正的教会。真正的教会是在耶稣基督里面，是神在创造人类以前在耶稣基督里就已经定的计画，这是以弗所书第一章3至14节告诉我们的。
　　 彼得提议三个派别：基督派，摩西派，以利亚派，就如哥林多教会内有保罗派，矶法派，亚波罗派，基督派，大家都认为自己的派别更属灵。所以神作了一件事，用一朵云彩遮盖他们。门徒一看，什么都没有了，摩西派没有了，以利亚派没有了，不见一人，只见耶稣。我们真的要从圣经里面，好好的认识耶稣基督。
　　 有一个信徒，从少年时就听我讲道，最近到澳洲又听我讲道，他说：“黄牧师，我从少年就听你讲耶稣，到现在你还讲耶稣，你什么时候能够把耶稣讲完呢？什么时候能不讲耶稣？”我说，除了耶稣基督，没有什么好讲的。

三． 只见耶稣的三个层面

　　不见一人，只见耶稣。研读圣经，谈论神学，对耶稣有知识上的认识。但是若果听了道理就完了，那对我们本身没有什么帮助。认识耶稣是从圣经中认识耶稣，然后用我们的生命去配合，去了解，然后耶稣的生命成为我们的生命，这是生命的认识。保罗把耶稣每个生命的本质成为他的生命本质，“我活着就是基督”，所以无论在哪里，保罗高举耶稣。保罗对哥林多教会说：“我在你们中间不知道别的，只知道耶稣并祂钉十字架。”保罗读了很多书，很有学问，但他认为那些没有什么价值，耶稣才是至宝，所以他对哥林多城懂得希腊哲学的哥林多人说：“我不知道别的，只知道耶稣基督并祂钉十字架。”又说：“我所传给你们的最要紧的就是耶稣基督被钉十字架，受死，埋葬了，第三天复活。”（林前一五：1-4）请看，先在知识方面，对主有认识；后在生命里面对耶稣认识，耶稣的生命成为我们的生命。
　　 有知识上的认识，生命上的认识，还有经验上的认识。在日常生活，工作和事奉中，面对任何人物，我们可以经验耶稣怎样在现实中与我们同在，同行，同工；不断地经验耶稣的信实，良善，公义，慈爱，温柔，圣洁，智慧等属性。这些是经验的认识。
　　 经验的认识各人不同，你有你的，我有我的，到底是什么人的经验才对呢？今天一些教会最大的错误，是要以自己所经验的基督模式，成为众人经验的模式：假如我所经验的，你没有经验到，你就不对了。这是绝对错误的。对耶稣经验认识，是个别的，而且每一次经验的深度不同。我事奉几十年来，常在经验里面体会基督的圣洁，公义，诚实等等，每次体验的程度不一样。我决不敢把我个人的经验作为一个模式让人照抄，因为各人的经验不尽相同。例如有人说，一个人得救必须要在布道会里听了道以后受感动举手，走到台前，那才算得救。我是这样决志的。可是我的妻子完全不一样，她听了道，当时没有表示，而是在回家的路上，坐在三轮车里祷告，“现在我听见耶稣，这么好，为什么我不信呢？”她就这样信了耶稣。没有举手，也没有走到台前，但那以后，她就真的信了。我的经验与她不一样。
　　 对耶稣的经验，没有谁的经验可作为模式。你今天经验到的，下一次也可能不一样；不能以下一次不一样就以为不对。但基本上可经验认识到基督是圣洁，诚实，公义，良善，温柔，慈爱，饶恕，赦免等等；这些经验上的认识，必然是与圣经真理一致的。

四． 只见耶稣的好处

　　不见一人，只见耶稣。在我们生活中，一定会遭受不义的事，人的误会，人的打击。我们所遇见的有好的，有坏的，有心怀诡诈但说话甜蜜，里面没有基督生命的人。要记住一件事：当面对任何人的时候，眼目仰望耶稣，你就不怕了。要祈求耶稣给你智慧，更重要的，当你遇见那种不好的人时，祷告：“主啊，改变他的心。”这祷告很有用。你遇见人很凶，要打你，你祷告：“主啊，给他心里快乐，让他对我好。”我常有这遭遇，遇到人凶得要命，人家都说他是个老顽固；我遇到他先祷告，求主立刻改变他的心，果然他的怒气就消了，看到我就高兴了，问我：“你好吗？”这不是我能做的。箴言说：“王的心在耶和华的手中，好像陇沟的水，随意流转。”耶稣在你的心中，帮助你面对任何人。
　　 不见一人，只见耶稣。当你遇见任何挫折，困难，走投无路，不要单看环境，你要看耶稣。不见一人，只见耶稣。当然这不是说我们行事为人与人相处，不去看人只看耶稣；可是当你面对难处的时候，你要只见耶稣，这样无论遇见何事，你会靠主安然度过。诗篇第二十三篇说：“在我的敌人面前，你为我摆设筵席。”这句话是什么意思？有三种解释：(1)当仇敌在我们面前，我们摆设筵席，大吃大喝让仇敌看得流口水；(2)我们充满戒备的心，防备仇敌，虽然也是在仇敌面前大吃大喝，但是防人之心不可无，所以是一面吃，一面警惕；(3)与仇敌一同坐席，化敌为友，在仇敌面前摆设筵席。你用哪一种解释呢？让我们在人生的道路上，学习不见一人，只见耶稣；学习倚靠耶稣，化敌为友。
　　 我们不知道前途如何，但知道我们活着是有主与我们同在，与我们同行。我们还有特别的使命，就是把所爱的耶稣，所信的耶稣，传给所有的人。愿我们在凡事上不见一人，只见耶稣.

1 我先确定自己对那件事完全没有自己的意思。当你预备好不论神的旨意如何，都要遵行时，就以克服了百分之九十的困难。

2 做到第一点之后，我不再让我的感觉或印象左右这事的结果，如果我不这么做就会使自己陷入极大的谬误之中。

3 我会透过神的话，寻求圣灵的心意，圣灵与神的话两者不可缺一。若我只寻求圣灵却不用神的话，我也会是自己陷入谬误中。圣灵的引导一定不会违反神的话，而是符合神的话。

4 然后，我机会观察神所预备的环境，很多时候环境与神的话和他的灵一同印证神的旨意。

5 我在祷告中求神将祂的心意向我显明。

6 藉着祷告，研读神的话，并反复思想。在我能力与知识范围内，做一个最好的决定。

  若是我的内心有平安，同时再祈求两三次后仍有这平安，我就会如此去做。

  我发现这方法无论在小事、大事上都很有效。

个人推荐，仅供参考！

　　普世教会近年来不断地推展与拓展一个又一个的事工，其中包括宣教性、教育性、社会性和文化性的。我们似乎都不约而同地为所收的成果而欢呼且感谢神；即若不是，我们也有其它理由 ─ 拥有许多的事工 ─ 而欢呼。这已成了很多教会的“使命”，极致不惜代价的地步。

　　当然，许多牧者会被这些接踵而至的事工及会议搞至头昏脑胀，但更多时候他们却乐此不倦，认为他们牧养的教会不是懈怠没事做，而他们已尽了最大的责任去“搞起”最大的事工。可是，在如此繁嚣的事工之外，我们有否愿意腾出心灵小小的空间，让它表白自己的心声呢？我们有给机会心灵深处呼唤出它那微小的声音吗？繁杂的工作似乎并不容许我们有如此安静思想及聆听心灵呼声的余地。

　　当牧者率领他的羊群推展一项大事工，就像军帅率领他的洋洋大军浩浩荡荡地长征争战时，他并没有察觉与他一同担起这重大任务的属灵同工，在事工背后，原来心灵是依旧贫乏、空虚、焦虑及无助的。许多教牧显然一而再地无视他们的会友心灵是如此枯干和饥渴。这是所有事工都不能填补的心灵需要，往往也是最为牧者所忽视的一环。然而，牧者常会因自己时时忙碌又忠心侍奉而自觉毫无指摘之处。他们因着接踵而来的事工，误以为教会经已走在正轨上，所以常本末倒置，省略牧养羊群灵性的职责和步骤；但他们不察觉，他们所见的只是会友既表面又肤浅的侍奉热诚。其中所隐藏的迷惘、无意义及无方向感，只有会友自知。这是必然的后果，因为当牧者忽略了聆听会友心声的重要性，他也就肯定不会从会友的角度去思想和反省。当然，牧者为事工付出的劳力是值得会友发出自内心的赞叹和感激的，只是他常常可能走向一个以物为人、以人为物的极端，这是牧者须要警惕和关注的。

　　好多爱牧心切的会友必总有他们自己被忽视的一套堂皇理由，就如“牧者工作繁重嘛！”、“牧者也是凡人啊，哪里顾得了我呢！”这还不是说穿了，到底为牧者与会友进深关系间堵上围墙的原因，好多时候还不是数不清的会议和教会活动！有时，牧者是为开会或牧会而存在的问题，真把人给弄混淆了。

　　故此，牧者也成了有妥协的借口，合法地把准备讲台信息的所需时间大幅调低，而信息的内容与水平自然就不言而喻了 ( 若遇上素质恶劣又不济的牧者就更不用说了 ) 。多少时候会众所听到的讲道已沦落为一篇圣经故事---一篇由小到大都继续不断在听着的主日学圣经故事---当中没有任何时空因素、没有警告、没有教导、没有反省、没有造就，更没有信息可言；却只是一个与我无关痛痒的圣经故事！

　　此外，探访也已成了牧者的例行公事。许多会友终身都不曾经验牧者到府上探访的“荣幸”，除了圣诞节报佳音及病危在旦夕的时刻。无怪乎我曾听一位弟兄说：“幸好牧师没有来探访过我，否则的话，那就是我很‘大锅’(遭遇不幸) 的时候了。”其实，牧者可会不知道，会友仍是活在世上，面对着许多苦难、抉择、彷徨及心灵有需要的羊群？牧者因着忙碌而放弃探访，他还有其它管道去了解并帮助解决和扶持他的羊群的需要及难处吗？没有的。若然，这就有点像一个牧者在讲台上传讲信息：“平安了！平安了！”真的平安吗？会友心里必定会自然地回应：“其实没有平安！”这就足以证明了牧者的讲道与会友的需要是完全脱节，沾不上关系了。当然，牧者并不能全然顾及所有会友的需要，尤其是在大教会，但其实这全不是问题；若牧者愿放弃以大事工为至上而将之常挂口边的自恃，反而选择以弃尊降卑的态度来服侍，他们是仍旧能得到会友的尊敬的。

　　何时，教会才能适当地调整步伐，不让事工与活动横夺我们所有的时间，进而占据我们仅有的心灵净土？这好叫我们能安静地聆听圣灵在我们心中所发出细小的声音，然后思想、听命，以至我们的步伐能配合神的脚印。耶稣说：“看哪！我在门外叩门，若有听见我声音就开门的，我要进到他那里去，我与他，他与我一同坐席”(启3：20)。圣灵经已蕴住于我们心灵的深处，问题只是我们有没有去寻觅祂---一位又真又活的神---进而认识自己，和自己的光景而已。

　　神所要的，不是我们所作的一切如何完美；祂要的是我们的全人能完全属于祂。牧者在这事上扮演着极重要的角色，就是喂养羊群的灵性，使他们的心能真正归向神、属于神。这才是真牧者的心肠，因为他们清楚知道教会的实体是又真又活的人，而不是形式和活动。唯有如此，牧者与会友的亲密关系才能真正建立起来。

　　然而，今日教牧的使命是什么呢？而会友所期待的又是什么呢？

基层人的特色

　　从情绪表现方面来看，基层人比较容易表达不满。他们的自我形象一般上不强，兼且容易自卑。他们的思维发展比较简单，通常只有“是”、“非”、“对”、“错”、“要”或“不要”这种黑白分明的封闭性系统。因此，他们对罪恶的观念也比较模糊，除了行为上的罪，他们很难觉察人心理上的罪。

　　基层人的工作时间一般上比较长，也比较忙，容易累；因为他们所受的教育只能让他们从事体力劳动。如果没有工作，基层人则比较不懂得如何安排休闲时间，所以他们的休闲活动大概只有这几样：看戏、唱卡拉 O K、喝茶、看电视、回乡下或赌博等。

　　基层人的价值观念比较实际，他们不喜欢说空话，也不喜欢听废话。由于基层人没有所谓的生涯规划观念，所以他们的人生可能比较容易发生令人措手不及的事，这会造成他们的生活方式比较戏剧化，也可能随时有危机。

　　在感情世界方面，基层人着重实时的满足，他们不太理会交往的异性对象的性格是否适合自己。他们会很快结婚，但婚后则可能因着不知道如何适应婚姻生活而很少沟通。基层人不懂得称赞别人，这可能是他们在原生家庭时没有操练沟通技巧的机会。一般的基层父母关系不融洽，所以他们的孩子自然不爱留在家里，也不爱读书，这可能也是基层人比较不容易脱离基层生活的恶性循环。此外，基层人注重男主外、女主内的传统和性别秩序，所以基层妇女多数会留在家里当家庭主妇。

基层人喜欢听的福音

　　一、有关关系和谐的信息：基层人喜欢与人建立关系，所以关系的和谐对他们很有吸引力。

　　二、传讲的信息要具体：不要抽象，最好常作见证。我们在香港某迪士高传福音时，那里的员工常常跑来对我们说﹕“嗳，刘博士，安排多一点见证，我们喜欢听见证。”

　　三、具体的行动﹕如果教会能够为小区里的基层人提供健康服务，给基层孩子补习，帮助他们得到社会资源，他们很快就会决定跟随这个“实际的基督教”。

　　四、危机的协助：对一个基层人来说，只要能带领他开口祷告，传福音的功夫就已经完成了百分之八十。因为他一开口祷告，就去到神的面前了。祷告，就是开放自己，让圣灵在他里头工作。这样的祷告会让他突然间觉得，自己跟神是有关系的。还没有信主的人，也可以邀请他祷告，但不是接受主的祷告，是其它祷告如﹕“上帝我叫XXX，我听我的朋友某某说祢很愿意帮助人，现在我有一个难题，你愿意帮助我吗？奉耶稣名，阿门”你要相信，只要基层人肯祷告，上帝就会做事。

　　五、基层人需要看到神迹才比较容易归向主。当然不一定需要很大的神迹，只要他感到上帝对他有反应就可以了，所以向基层人传福音，要情词迫切的祷告。

　　六、基层人喜欢听故事。每个要做基层事工的人，都要学会说故事，要说得动听，说得精彩，有声有色；好像整张脸连鼻子眼睛都会说话那样。

　　七、基层人要先投入一个群体才会决志。因此，教会要让基层人在参与活动和小组时得到归宿感。

　　八、基层人归主之后不能存有偶像。基层人信主后一定要帮助他们除偶像，还要慢慢的让他们明白，耶稣基督是如何独特的真神，要不然整个福音工作将事倍功半，而基层人相信的可能只是一个换了名字的神而已。

以下是两个基层教会成功的例子﹕

一．约翰．韦斯利

　　他在矿工中工作，结果带了14万人信主。
他的成功有六个秘诀﹕

　　一、他以收割为目标，不只以见证为目标。传了福音，他就邀请初信者加入细胞小组。澳门有个教会的做法也类似﹕有人信主了，教会就为他买个大蛋糕，并举办生日会。这么大的蛋糕吃不完怎办，很自然的，他会去请自己的邻居。邻居来了，会问他怎么多了一个生日，那时他就会作见证，解释人生的第二个生日是信耶稣得救重生的日子。过后，在他家聚会的弟兄姐妹会一起唱轻松的诗歌，并玩游戏。过后，一个新的小组就成形了。这是非常成功的模式。这基层教会不植堂，他们“植组”，也有人称为“爆组”，因为这是有爆炸性的小组。几个小组集合起来，三、五十人在一起崇拜岂不是一个教会？

　　二、藉小区网做福音工作，鼓励信徒把自己身边的熟人带来，就算是一带一，那效果还是很可观的。

　　三、由各式各样的细胞小组承接牧养工作。有人问，教会有很多不同的年龄群体和职业群体该怎么做？让老人家成立一个小组，厨师成立一个小组，边缘青少年与戒毒者各自成立不同的小组啊。每个小组做不同对象的福音工作就行了。

　　四、要看重对象感觉到的需要。要知道基层人的痛在那里。一个人感到痛苦时，你给他解决了问题，他会很感激你的。问一下自己：“我知道身边的人痛在那里吗？”比如说地盘劳工，我们发现，他们最大的难处是怕死。所以我们对他们传福音时，就多说这方面的信息给他们安慰。另外呢，地盘工友也怕渴，因为他们常常要在太阳底下曝晒，因此我们就给他们的工地送汤水、菊花茶、五花茶，让他们不会中暑。他们很感激，就称呼我们为“汤水天使”。你们这里也有地盘工友，他们也会口渴是吗？找几个太太专门为他们送汤水吧，三两下教会就把他们吸引过来了。

　　五、为着对象的需要打破传统。当时韦斯利．约翰的教会只能在礼拜堂里传福音，但为了要让更多矿工得救，他就主动进入他们当中，结果听道的人从 100 人增加到一万人。他们用的诗歌和音乐也是专为福音对象写的。

　　六、大胆的本色化、大众化。韦斯利没有等人来他的聚会所，他反而常常到市场，到公园，到十字路口，到基层人工作的地方，用最浅，最普通的英语向他们传道。

拉丁美洲教会

　　拉丁美洲教会的成功之处是利用基层人做基层工作。那一种人最明白基层文化？当然就是基层人嘛。所以，边缘青少年最能带领边青归主，老人家最能带老人归主。

　　我看到一个奇怪的现象：没有信主的人朋友最多，信了主的人都六亲不认了，很快就疏远非信徒朋友。所以有人信主了，要马上训练他去传福音。当你把他带到街头，他刚信主，不会说别的，只好说自己的见证。虽然他说得结结巴巴的，但这样更纯真。我们教会有一个卖鸡饭的弟兄，他信了主，出来做见证时，粗口还没戒完呢。他说两句话，就要冒出一个粗口，我们在他前面便给他一个信号。他知道了，说了一句sorry，又接下去了。他说，我信耶稣真是好，然后随手从胸襟掏出一条像锁链一般粗的金条。他喊﹕“美不美？”听的人回答﹕“美！”他接下去说﹕“你知不知道，这是我信了耶稣才买到的。我以前赌博输了整条街（夸张）。赚多少输多少，现在我信了耶稣，耶稣给我能力，我就掂了。”还有，他说﹕“我娶老婆很便宜，在教堂只花 2 万多就娶了一个漂亮的老婆。”“我现在很开心，我每天回到家就 kiss 老婆一下，还帮他洗碗呢。”哗，说到这里，听的妇女实在羡慕死了。你懂我的意思吗？他说的的确不能登大雅之堂，但他的见证很有吸引力不是吗？所以教会有刚信主的人，不要让他停下来，要一直带他出去，这样，只要你带领得好，他的成长就会很快，很扎实。

　　二、信主的人很快就成为教会的中坚份子。他们在教会里信主，就在教会里生根。

　　三、向贫穷人工作。他们的教会能接受不洗澡、穿破鞋、常常吐痰在地上，唱歌走音的人。

　　四、他们的牧者是第一代信徒。大部份第一代信徒，与没有信主的人的关系，是比较接近的。他们对非信徒有很大的负担，因为他自己就是从那里走出来的，他知道那种痛苦。第二代信徒，喜欢研究圣经。第三代信徒则容易变成“圣经学者”。所以第三代信徒很难做基层工作。

　　五、教会总动员。拉丁美洲许多教会是所有的人都自愿出去传福音或做关怀工作的。我们在“ 348 ”的迪士高传福音，有很多教会跟我们配搭，其中做得最好的是敬拜会。他们的信徒几乎都是为主而活的，他们的工作只是副业。从第一个礼拜到第12个礼拜，他们每次都出席。每次出席都带十几个人信主，还有60个人留电话给他们。这当中有一对夫妇，他们也带了六、七十人信主。

　　六、崇拜是乐事。有些教会的崇拜是安息礼拜，你知道，没有多少人会喜欢一年52次参加安息礼拜的。教会崇拜应该让人感受到信仰的活力与生命力。另外，崇拜的音乐未必要很吵，但一定要让人感到快乐与被接纳。

　　七、 神迹奇事是教会生活的一部份。

　　八、组织像个家庭。拉丁美洲教会能使信徒有认同感，因为有人有需要时，大家会平均分配。我们香港的庙街有一个牧师，当露宿者向他借钱，他不会给钱，因为他不要人拿钱去吸烟、吸毒。但他会带人去吃饭。去到饭店，他叫了一盘饭，就分成两份，一份给露宿者，一份给自己。真的很令人感动。另外，他有时也会把露宿者带回家里，然后他和儿子睡地上，让露宿者睡在他儿子的床上。

小结

　　小组是心连心的，要人肯交心就必须大家容易沟通，所以要纯一基层人参加。团契是面对面的，可以有一点混合基层与非基层人。崇拜是肩并肩的，大家只顾敬拜神，不太理会旁边的人是谁，所以基层人与非基层人在一起无阻隔。重要的是，无论是肩并肩、面对面或心连心，教会一定要呈现耶稣基督的情与义；也要让信徒有被接纳进入一个大家庭的感觉。