承傳與更新: 從艾得理在港學生事工看傳教士與華人教會及青年基督徒的互動

Translated title of the contribution: Keeping tradition and introducing innovation: : David Adeney’s student ministry as a case for studying the interaction and changes of Hong Kong Church and society

Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articlepeer-review

Abstract

艾得理為二十世紀後半期的重要宣教士之一。他長時期從事校園佈道事工,曾參與解放前國內的大學生佈道工作,以及五六十年代香港的學生福音工作。艾得理在港期間,除了有兩年時間擔任靈光堂部分時間牧師外,其餘工作主要以福音機構為倚託。值得注意的是,不少在六七十年代曾參與香港學生福音團契活動的青年基督徒,後來皆成為香港教會的重要領袖。學生福音團契後來也成為了一系列創新的教會事工的搖籃。本文主要研究艾得理作為華人教會開基百多年後來華的傳教士,而宣教工場又是於福音機構而非教會,其工作對青年基督徒及當時教會所帶來的影響與衝擊。本文嘗試論證艾得理在華人保守教會中,堪稱一個傳統與更新的糅合者。艾氏一方面保持華人保守教會珍視的屬靈傳統,另一方面將深受保守華人屬靈傳統薰陶的青年人引向西方當時新興福音派的門檻,並成為這些青年人的「保護者」與「栽培者」。艾氏的工作,為保守華人教會在六七十年代香港社會現代化轉變過程中,培養了具現代思潮的人才,使保守華人教會在後來的社會轉變中,擁有一批敢於創新的新興年輕領袖。

David Adeney is an important Missionary to Hong Kong after 1950’s. He is a veteran in evangelical student ministry. He participated in the university evangelistic works in mainland China until 1951, then in Hong Kong for another two decades.This article investigates how Adeney’s work in evangelical students influenced Hong Kong churches. I argue that Adeney can act as a bridge across the gap between tradition and innovation. He, on the one hand, kept the spiritual tradition of conservative Chinese churches; and introduced the new western evangelical thought to the young conservative Christians on the other hand. He is also a protector and trainer of the young conservatives in 1960’s and 70’s. He helped them to become new leaders with modern and progressive mindset of Hong Kong churches.
Translated title of the contributionKeeping tradition and introducing innovation: : David Adeney’s student ministry as a case for studying the interaction and changes of Hong Kong Church and society
Original languageChinese (Traditional)
Pages (from-to)123-152
Number of pages30
Journal建道學刊
Issue number32
Publication statusPublished - Jul 2009

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Keeping tradition and introducing innovation: : David Adeney’s student ministry as a case for studying the interaction and changes of Hong Kong Church and society'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this