Editor’s note: This article originated as a PowerPoint presentation at a meeting in 2022, during the pandemic. Although two years have passed, as of this writing in 2024, the insights and lessons contained within remain highly relevant and important.
1. Run, Running, Runology
The term “running” (润) has once again gone viral due to the “exodus” phenomenon that occurred after the lifting of the COVID-19 lockdown in Shanghai. It has become the latest buzzword among young Chinese people, following trends like “involution” and “lying flat.”
“Running” and “the last generation” are silent cries of despair from many Chinese young adults in their twenties and thirties who feel hopeless about their country and future. The following two examples may offer a glimpse into the increasingly apparent reality of mainland China—a hyper-controlled society in the post-pandemic era.
The first example comes from a May 25, 2022, report published by The New York Times Chinese website titled “‘The Last Generation’: The Disillusionment of Young Chinese.” The article includes the following passage:
Tongji University in Shanghai, known for its engineering and architecture programs, issued detailed instructions on how to use a mobile phone-based queuing system for the toilets and washrooms, according to a document on the system reviewed by The New York Times.
Each student would need to press ‘start’ when they left the dorm for the toilet, and press “stop” when they returned to avoid two people in the hallway at the same time, said the instructions. Each toilet run would be allowed a maximum 10 minutes. After eight minutes, the others in the queue could digitally poke the student in the toilet. After 10 minutes, the student would need to explain to the queuing group why it took so long.
The second example is an article from the Singaporean newspaper Lianhe Zaobao published on August 3, 2022, titled “About 1.2 Million Chinese Entered Malaysia in the Past Three Years with No Exit Records.“
Malaysian immigration records show that from 2018 to 2021, approximately 1.2 million Chinese nationals entered the country without any record of departure. The Islamic Party of Kedah believes that the federal government should establish a commission of inquiry to investigate this matter thoroughly.
According to the party’s newspaper Harakah on Wednesday (August 3), the chairman of the Kedah Islamic Party, Ahmad Yahya, issued a statement on Tuesday (August 2) stating that the above data is based on the recent reply from the Ministry of Home Affairs in the lower house of parliament. He said that according to the 2018 report of the Auditor General, there were more than 100,000 tourists from China and India who entered Malaysia but had no exit records.
Due to this reassessment of history, present reality, and the future, many people have chosen to “vote with their feet,” that is, to “run” (润)—to escape the mainland, to escape China.
2. The Beijing Church’s Understanding of “Running”
The immense societal tremors and crises of recent times have deeply resonated within churches in Beijing, sparking significant discussion and debate among its pastors. During the first half of 2022, amidst the pandemic and uncertainty surrounding the future of both China and the church, a crucial question emerged: “Is China Sodom or Rome?”
One perspective likened present-day China to Sodom, a nation poised to face divine wrath and inevitable judgment from heaven. This view painted a bleak picture of China’s future, characterized by prolonged suffering and despair, using evocative sayings or terms like “after tomorrow,” “misfortunes never come singly,” “where will it all end,” “one after another,” and “unending.”
However, a more prevalent perspective among pastors drew parallels between contemporary China, particularly Beijing, and the city of Rome during Augustine’s era. Despite facing internal and external turmoil, Rome embodied the duality of the “City of God” and the “City of Man,” a complexity that distinguished it from the outright wickedness of Sodom.
Those who envisioned China as Sodom presented a series of predictions regarding the future of both society and the church:
- Widespread business closures and downsizing would impact society at large, leading to discontent within the business community.
- The general populace would experience hardship and declining living standards, potentially resulting in social instability and unrest.
- The post-pandemic world could see nations distancing themselves from China, forming a united front against the country.
- The United States might implement new policies specifically targeting China.
- While large-scale monetary interventions by the state could offer temporary relief, the long-term success would hinge on factors like industrial upgrades, economic revitalization, and the resumption of foreign trade. Failure in these areas could lead to irreversible economic damage.
- The era following Putin’s leadership in Russia could bring significant changes and uncertainties.
- The upcoming leadership transition in China could trigger internal conflicts within the system, potentially escalating into widespread public protests and unrest.
- In the Taiwan Strait crisis, a possible evolution model is to continuously accept and expand Taiwan’s status and space in the process of “de-Sinicization,” without the need to declare independence, which would make the situation completely different.
In light of these potential challenges, the church in China must cultivate a heightened awareness in the following theological and pastoral areas:
- A deep understanding of the theology of the cross is crucial, encompassing its significance as theological content, methodology, and ethical framework.
- A focus on eschatology encourages a detachment from worldly concerns and a conscious awareness of our heavenly home. Recognizing the nearing of the end times fosters a sense of reverence and urgency, leading to active engagement in God’s redemptive plan.
- Beyond mere attendance at gatherings, a more profound sense of belonging and commitment to the spiritual community is essential.
- Actively questioning and responding to reality through the lens of the Great Commission is not merely a temporary measure to weather a crisis. Instead, it represents a more fundamental and conscious, deliberate response.
- The church possesses a basic understanding of the challenges it faces.
- The church requires a holistic and organized approach to address the difficulties ahead.
Specifically, the mainland church is likely to face many significant challenges, including:
- Strict community management may restrict access to church buildings, potentially leading to a normalization of online gatherings.
- Economic hardship could impact both individual members and the overall financial stability of the church.
- Circumstances may force members to relocate, leading to a decline in church attendance and participation.
- As James warns, times of turmoil often breed discord and division among believers.
- Prolonged online services may result in decreased spiritual engagement, ineffective pastoral care, and a weakening sense of commitment among members.
- Many training programs may be suspended or transitioned to online formats, potentially impacting their effectiveness.
- The current climate may present significant obstacles to evangelism and outreach efforts.
- Students may face challenges in accessing pastoral guidance and support due to restrictions and limitations.
- Amidst a changing world and the emergence of seemingly beneficial ideas and movements, the church may mistakenly confuse its own desires and ideologies with the voice of Jesus, leading to misguided pursuits.
- The church may experience internal divisions and strained relationships between different congregations, hindering inter-church collaboration and unity.
- Connections and interactions with churches outside the mainland may undergo significant changes.
The church in China must consider the possibility of extremely difficult times and focus on individual evangelism, small group discipleship, and fostering a community of deeply committed individuals. Church life within the country may become more inward-focused and individualized, reminiscent of the 1950s and 60s. In such a scenario, the church’s response to the world would primarily consist of individual faith and moral integrity, along with occasional personal evangelism efforts.
While the church is likely to experience a prolonged period of dormancy and weakness, its survival remains highly probable. The true crisis lies in the challenges related to pastoral growth, discipleship, and expansion. For most believers and churches, the immediate threat may not directly pertain to personal safety or survival.
Under such circumstances, we have noticed several important cases regarding the question of running or not running within the mainland churches.
The first one is the Shenzhen Holy Reformed Church (SHRC). As is widely known, at the end of 2019 and the beginning of 2020, sixty Chinese Christians from SHRC, led by Pastor Pan Yongguang, left their homes in Shenzhen and sought religious asylum in Jeju Island, South Korea. With the support of many, they eventually immigrated to the United States.
The second case is the large-scale emigration and missions of a certain church in Beijing. Starting in 2019, a particular church in Beijing began relocating its core theological and Christian school education personnel to a Southeast Asian country. The sudden outbreak of the pandemic significantly accelerated and even altered this process. Today, the vast majority of pastors, co-workers, and families from this church, numbering over 800 members, have migrated to this nation. However, a deeper understanding of the church’s history and theology reveals that this remarkable shift is not essentially an act of running, but rather one driven by mission, evangelism, and God’s calling.
3. Historical Inspiration
Can and should the church “run”? This is a real and present question before us. Perhaps we can glean some insights from church history.
In the late 1940s, the Chinese church faced a similar dilemma. Some individuals chose to run (either actively or passively), such as Andrew Gih, Timothy Chao, and Philip Teng. In early 1949, both Pastor Andrew Gih and Pastor Timothy Chao were invited to the United States for ministry conferences. By the time they were ready to return to China, the political landscape had shifted dramatically, blocking their path home. They arrived in Hong Kong and, independently, rented theaters to preach the gospel. In 1951, Pastor Gih established the Canaan Church in Kowloon, Hong Kong, and in the same year, Pastor Chao founded the Kowloon Ling Liang Church.
However, others chose not to run, such as Watchman Nee.
In a letter titled “Watchman Nee’s Final Exhortation,” he wrote:
Finally, apart from the basic training of believers, the spirit of evangelism, the principles of authority, and other teachings, please do not mention anything else. You are to share with those who can receive it. I sense the path before us is quite dark, but I believe there are no insurmountable challenges for a dedicated individual. The Lord reigns supreme over all; let us learn to rely on him, to both love and trust in him. He is a God brimming with compassion and glory, and we delight in approaching him to serve. Fear not, nor worry. Though we are but dust, we have received mercy and are granted the privilege to partake in this glorious service. Let us give thanks to God. In calling us to serve him, God has bestowed upon us the greatest honor. There is no greater grace than this. Amen.
We observe that at this historical turning point, at the crossroads of running and staying, Brother Watchman Nee’s unwavering focus remains on: God’s calling, God’s will, and God’s guidance.
4. Running, Staying, and Returning in the Bible
Regarding the concepts of running, staying, and returning,
Abraham stands as the forefather of the “running clan.” Let us trace his running path: from Ur of the Chaldeans to Haran, to Canaan (Shechem to Bethel), to Egypt, back to Bethel, and finally to Hebron. On a map, we can clearly see Abraham’s movements between the Mesopotamian and Egyptian civilizations, running back and forth. While his journey from Bethel to Egypt was driven by circumstance (famine, Genesis 12:9–10), the fundamental reason for Abraham’s migration from the then-center of the world, the great city of Ur of the Chaldeans, to the barren land of Hebron was rooted in God’s calling and promise (Genesis 12:1–4).
Jacob’s story appears more relatable to many of our brothers today, as he chose the path of running for personal gain. His journey took him from Canaan to Paddan Aram (where Laban lived), back to Canaan, to Egypt, and back to Canaan to return his bones. His first departure from his homeland was to escape his brother’s vengeance after committing a crime, while his second departure, descending to Egypt in his old age, was driven by the hope of family reunion. However, the true guiding force behind his running journey was his nighttime encounter with God at Bethel, where he received a message directing his path (Genesis 28:10–16).
Moses’ exodus was an unprecedented and magnificent event, a radiant chapter in history. He led the entire Hebrew nation in a collective departure from the land of Pharaoh (the word exodus itself signifies running). They endured ten plagues, crossed the Red Sea, wandered in the wilderness, faced trials and tribulations, yet persevered with unwavering determination. Their exodus ultimately triumphed, leading the Israelites to the “land flowing with milk and honey.” The origin of this remarkable journey lay in the profound burning bush vision (Exodus 3:1–21).
Jeremiah’s case was unique. He fervently encouraged the Israelites to (passively) run to Babylon (Jeremiah 24:5–7), yet he himself declined the offer to go to Babylon under the best possible conditions (Jeremiah 40:1–6). In the end, he seemed to run to Egypt in a tragic and seemingly defeated manner (Jeremiah 43:6–7). However, we believe that Jeremiah’s entire journey, from beginning to end, was under the authority of God’s word: “The word of the Lord came to Jeremiah.”
Sheshbazzar (Zerubbabel)’s return was prompted by the decree of Cyrus (Ezra 1:1–4), Ezra’s return by the decree of Artaxerxes (Ezra 7:11–20), and Nehemiah’s return by God’s calling, inspiration, and the edict of Artaxerxes (Nehemiah chapters 1–2). The Israelites believed all of these events stemmed from God’s providence and mysterious ways.
After Stephen’s martyrdom, the church faced severe persecution. Except for the apostles, the disciples scattered (went) throughout Judea and Samaria. Philip went to Samaria to preach, and he and his four daughters later settled in Caesarea. This fulfilled the mystery of the Great Commission: “You will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth” (Acts 1:8).
Paul’s life was spent traversing the eastern Roman Empire, around the Aegean Sea. He was born in Tarsus, raised in Jerusalem, and radically transformed on the road to Damascus. After Damascus, Paul journeyed through Arabia, Damascus, Tarsus, and Antioch. He made five trips to Jerusalem, three missionary journeys, and was later escorted to Rome, continuously clarifying his visionary journey (from Jerusalem to Spain, and to the ends of the earth). His life’s running journeys were all driven by the fact that Paul “was not disobedient to the heavenly vision” (Acts 26:19).
5. Conclusion
Within the Bible, the motivations for running (immigration), non-running (staying), and re-running (returning) can be categorized into three groups. First, personal reasons, such as escaping hardship or disaster. Examples include Lot leaving Abraham for Sodom, Elimelech moving his family from Bethlehem to Moab, and Jacob fleeing to Paddan Aram. Second, involuntary relocation, such as Joseph being sold into slavery in Egypt and the Israelites being taken into exile. Third, a conscious decision to move in obedience to God’s will. Examples include Abraham leaving Ur, Jacob’s family going down to Egypt, Moses leading the Israelites out of Egypt, and the exiled remnant returning to Israel.
However, the reality is that all instances of running, staying, and returning are in God’s hands. Firstly, it is crucial to understand God’s will, have a clear heavenly vision, and discern the mysteries behind our circumstances. Secondly, the emphasis should not be on running but on death. Whether we choose running, staying, or returning, we should choose the path of death on the cross. Thirdly, as we ultimately journey towards eternal life, we should all yearn to run to the New Jerusalem in heaven. “I will build them up and not tear them down; I will plant them and not uproot them” (Jeremiah 24:6). This land is not an earthly one but the heavenly new city.
Finally, let us not forget the lessons of history. The debates, clashes, and conflicts within the church regarding running and staying are concerning. Nehemiah 5:1–19 reflects the intense disputes and conflicts between the returning and staying factions after the return from exile. In Korean church history, similar conflicts arose between the independent faction that ran to Northeast China, the northern faction that fled (ran) from Pyongyang to Seoul after 1945, and the staying faction that remained in South Korea and endured Japanese colonial rule. We hope that such conflicts will not be repeated in the Chinese church.
Endnotes
Originally from "ChinaSource"
CCD edited and reprinted with permission
1 解题：润学
因上海疫情和解封后出现的“出逃”现象让该用语再次爆红，成为继“内卷”，“躺”平之后， 在中国年轻一代广为流行的最新用语。
“润学”和“最后一代”是许多二三十岁的中国年轻人对国家和未来感到绝望“无声的呐喊”。
关于中国大陆逐步凸显出来的现实（后疫情时代的超级控制型社会），下面的两个例子也许 可以帮助我们管中窥豹，稍见一斑。
一是2022年5月25日“纽约时报中文网”发表的报道：“最后一代”和“润学”：中国年 轻人的绝望与幻灭。其中有这样一段话：
“以工程和建筑专业闻名的上海同济大学曾对如何使用基于手机的厕所和盥洗室排队系统发布了详细说明，《纽约时报》看到了有关该系统的文件。根据这份说明，为了避免两个人同时出现在走廊里，每个学生离开宿舍去卫生间时需要在手机应用上按“开始”，回到宿舍后再按“结束”。每次上厕所的时间最多10分钟。8分钟过后，如果厕所里的学生还没出来，等着上厕所的 学生可以在手机应用中“拍一拍”他。10分钟还没出来的话，该学生需要向排队的人解释为什么要花这么长时间。”
第二个是2022年8月03日新加坡“联合早报”中的一篇文章：“过去三年约120万中国人入 境马国后没有出境记录”。
“马来西亚移民局记录显示，从2018至2021年共有约120万名中国人入境后没有出境记录。
吉打伊斯兰党认为，联邦政府应该成立调查委员会彻查此事。
据伊党党报《哈拉卡》星期三（8月3日）报道，伊党吉打州主席阿末耶耶星期二（2日）发布声明表示，上述数据是根据内政部最近在国会下议院的答复。他说，根据总审计署2018年的报告，当时共有超过10万名来自中国与印度的游客入境马国，但没有出境记录。”
因着对历史，现实，和未来的重新认识，许多中国人选择了“用脚投票”，也就是“润（runing）”， 1 本文原为 2022 年（疫情中）在某次会议中发表的 PPT 文件，如今（2024）已经过去两年了，但我认 为文本中的看见和领受依然具有重要的现实意义。 2 逃离大陆，逃离中国。
2 北京教会对“润”的认识
这样巨大的社会震荡和危机同样在北京教会里引起了广泛的关注。在2022年上半年的时候， 关于疫情，中国和教会的未来，北京教会牧者之间有一场不大不小的争论：“索多玛，还是罗马”？
有牧者相信今天的中国大陆是将要承受上帝震怒的“索多玛”，必然会遭遇到从天降下，不可避 免的审判。他用了六个词描绘了大陆将经历一场漫长痛苦，令人绝望的历史：“明日之后， 祸不 单行，接踵而至，伊于胡底，鳞次栉比，不绝如缕”。更多的牧者相信如今的中国大陆（特别是 北京）更像奥古斯丁时代的罗马城，虽然内忧外患，危如累卵，但毕竟罗马城同时兼有“上帝之 城”和“地上之城”的奥秘，和“索多玛”大不相同。
相信大陆将成为“索多玛”的牧者们对大陆社会和教会的未来作出了一系列的推测。
未来的大陆社会很可能遭遇：
1.企业大规模的缩减和倒闭，影响开始到整个社会可以感受，也引起企业界的反弹
2.人民生活普遍地受影响，生活困顿，社会秩序出现动荡
3.后疫情时期世界各国的去华阵线
4.美国实施新的对华政策
5.国家大规模的货币投入可能产生有效的影响，是否成功取决于如此暂时的刺激和缓解期间，是否产生产业升级，是否恢复经济活力，外贸重新放开产生新的大宗需求等。如果失败，经济就会万劫不复。
6.俄罗斯，后普京时代开启
7.中国换届，有围绕换届产生体制内较大的冲突而且扩大为民众抗议和风潮的可能性。
8.台海危机，可能的演进模式是在“去中国化”當中不断地接纳和扩大台湾的地位和空间， 无需表态独立，就会让局势完全不同。
在这样的背景下，大陆教会必须要有如下神学和牧会的自觉：
1 十字架神学的自觉，必须同时有十字架神学作为神学内容，作为神学方法，作为伦理抉择这三个同时的自觉。
2 末世论的自觉：轻看今生，非常自觉于自己不属于这个世界的属天的归宿。有实感地意识到结局近了，有敬畏和紧迫感。对于神整体的救赎计划的积极的委身。
3 对于教会的委身要更有实感。不只是参加聚会，更实质性地属于属灵共同体。
4 教会积极的大使命意识。从大使命的角度积极追问和回应现实，不是仅仅度过危机的权宜 之计，而是更本质和自觉，深思熟虑地回应。
5 对于形势有基本贴切的判断。
6 需要有整体性的系统的应对决断。
具体来说，大陆教会大概率会实际会遇到许多重大的困难：
1 生存空间压缩甚至取缔，小区管理严格难以出入，线上聚会可能常态化
2 会友们和教会本身的财务压力
3 会友离开教会或着所在城市
4 教会内部纷争，如雅各书所说一般，一旦动荡必会纷争
5 长期线上会友灵性低落，牧养无力，委身感弱
6 很多培训停止或改为线上
7 很难得到新人
8 学生隔绝于教会牧养
9 风声和引诱，在变化的世界中有教会以为好的东西和主张，教会容易错认自己欲望和理念 的声音为主耶稣的声音，热切地跟从。
10 教会的分裂和教会间关系的疏远和破裂，跨教会的联合事工会艰难。
11 跟海外的关系可能也有许多变化。
大陆教会需要考虑极为严峻时刻的可能性，聚焦于个人布道，小组牧养和高度委身的少数献身者团契。整个教会生活在境内转为内向和个人化，如同当年50-60年代一样。这种情况下教会 对于世界的反应只剩下个体性信仰道德的自守和随机发生的个人布道。
总之，教会很可能长期处于冰冻冬眠和软弱萎靡，但仍然存留的可能性很大。真正的危机是 牧养成长得人拓展相关的难处。对于多数信徒和教会，未必会直接是人身意义上的生存和安全的危机。
在这样的背景下，我们注意到大陆教会在“润，还是非润”的问题上，有几个重要的案例。
第一个是深圳圣道教会。众所周知，2019年底和2020年初，来自深圳改革宗圣道教会（SHRC， 牧师潘永光）60名中国基督徒离开了他们在中国南部城市深圳的家，来到韩国济州岛寻求宗教庇护。最终在许多人的帮助下，他们成功移民美国。
第二个是北京某教会的大规模移民宣教。从2019年起，该教会就开始将教会的神学教会和基 督教学校教育的核心人员转移到东南亚某国；突如其来的疫情大大加速，甚至改变了这个过程。 如今，该教会800多教友当中绝大部分教牧，同工，家庭都来到了该国。但若深入了解该教会的 历史和神学，合宜的结论却是该教会令人瞩目的改变本质上并非“润”，而是在于宣教，使命， 和上帝的呼召。
3 历史的启发
教会可不可以，应不应该“润”？这是一个摆在我们面前的，现实的问题。我们也许可以从 教会历史中得到一些启示。
上个世纪40年代末的中国教会，面临着几乎同样的问题。有一些人（主动或者被动）的选择 了“润”，比如：计志文，赵世光（包括藤近辉）。1949年稍早，计志文牧师与赵世光牧师都应 邀到美国领会，当他们要回中国时政局已改变，返家之路已阻断，他们来到香港，不约而同地租 借戏院传福音。1951年计牧师在香港九龙成立迦南堂，同年赵牧师也建立了九龙灵粮堂， 但也有人选择了“非润”，比如倪柝声2 弟兄。1948年6月，倪柝声恢复职事后，立刻在福州 鼓岭举行了一次成功的同工训练，第一期参加的有八十几位弟兄姊妹。倪柝声为此制定了一个 “二十年福音传遍中国”的宏伟计划。这个计划有五条大路线：一是从天津、北平进入绥远; 二 是从烟台、青岛到陇海线，进到西安; 三是从上海顺着长江一直到四川; 四是从福建厦门经过江 西，进入内地; 五是从香港进广州，至西南。1949年（过长江的炮声已经清晰可闻的时候），倪 柝声相信：神将全中国的福音工作都交给了地方教会，而地方教会这时候所缺的就是工人，所以 他要加紧时间培训工人，在全国各地效法使徒时代的教会模式建立地方教会，实现他从主来的托咐和启示。
在一份名为“倪柝声弟兄最后的劝勉”的书信当中，他这么说：“最后，除了信徒基本操练、 传福音的灵、权柄的原则和别的教训外，别的东西请你们不要提。你们要分给那些能领受的人。
我感觉到我们前面的路是相当黑暗，但是我相信对于一个奉献的人是没有什么难题的。主是 在万有之上的主，让我们学习倚靠他，让我们既爱神又倚靠神，神是满有怜憫和荣耀的神，我们喜欢能爬到他面前来事奉他。不要惧怕，也不要担忧。虽然我们不过是灰尘，然而我们却蒙了怜怸，被准许有份于这一个荣耀的事奉，让我们感谢神。在神召我们事奉他的这件事上，神是把最 大的荣耀赐给了我们。没有比这个还更大的恩典了。阿们。”
我们看到：在历史的转折点，在“润”和“非润”的选择时刻，倪柝声弟兄关注的永远是： 神的呼召，神的旨意，神的引导。
4 圣经里的“润”，“非润”，与“再润”
关于，“润”，“非润”，“再润”3 ，我们可以从圣经当中得到一些教训。 亚伯拉罕是“润族”的祖先。我们看他“润”的路径：迦勒底的吾珥- 哈兰- 迦南（示剑-伯特利）- 埃及- 伯特利- 希伯仑；在地图上，我们可以清楚的看到，亚伯拉罕在两河流域和埃及 文明之间，润来润去。虽然他从伯特利“润”到 埃及是时局所迫（饥荒，创 12:9-10），但根本 上来说，亚伯拉罕从当时世界文明的中心，迦勒底的吾珥大城“润”到不毛之地的希伯伦，根本 原因是因着上帝的呼召和应许（创 12:1-4）。
雅各看起来和我们今天许多弟兄更加相似，因着个人利益最大化选择了“润”的路径。从迦 南- 巴旦亚兰（拉班）- 迦南 - 埃及- 迦南（骸骨归还）。他第一次离开故乡是犯罪后逃避哥哥 的报复，第二次离开故土，以耄耋之年而下埃及是因着期待家族团圆。但真正一路引导他“润途” 的其实却是他在伯特利夜间与神相遇，被神引导路途的信息（创 28:10-16）。
摩西之“润”史无前例，波澜壮阔，光耀史记。他带领整个民族（希伯来人）集体“润”离法老之地（Exodus正是离开，“润”的意思），经十灾，过红海，徘徊在旷野，砥砺于试探，历经艰难，百折不挠，“润”以成功，终能带领以色列人进入那“流奶与蜜之地”。而这一切的滥觞，在于伟大的“荆棘异象”（出 3:1-21）
耶利米的例子非常独特，他竭力鼓励以色列人（被动性地）“润”到巴比伦地（耶 24:5-7）， 他自己却拒绝了在最佳条件下“润”到巴比伦的建议（耶 40:1-6），最后，却似乎以一种极其悲 惨和失败的方式“润”到了埃及（耶 43:6-7）。但我们相信：耶利米的“润”途，从头到尾都这 句话语的权柄之下：“耶和华的话临到耶利米”。
设巴萨（所罗巴伯）的“再润（归回）”是因居鲁士策令（拉 1:1-4），以斯拉的“再润（归 回）”是因亚达薛西策令（拉 7:11-20），尼希米“再润（归回）”是因神的呼召，感动和亚达薛西诏书（尼 1-1章）。所有这些，以色列人都相信是源于上帝的护理和奥秘。
司提反殉道后教会大遭逼迫，除使徒外，门徒都分散(润)在犹太和撒玛利亚各处。腓利“润”到撒玛利亚传道，他和四个女儿后来定居于该撒利亚。这正好成就了大使命的奥秘：“在耶路撒冷，犹太全地，撒玛利亚，直到地极，作我的见证。”（徒 1:8）
保罗的一生，奔忙于罗马帝国的东部，爱琴海周围。他生在大数，长在耶路撒冷，完全改变 在大马色路上。大马色后保罗辗转于亚拉伯，大马色，大数，安提阿，一生有五次耶路撒冷之旅， 三次宣教旅行，后来被解押到罗马，不断阐明他的“异象之行（从耶路撒冷到西班牙，直到地极）”。 他一生的“润途”，都是因为保罗从来“没有违背那从天上来的异象”。（徒 26:19）
5 结论
圣经当中的“润”，“非润”，“再润”的理由似乎可以归纳为三类。第一，个人原因，逃避苦 难、灾祸。比如罗得离开亚伯拉罕而迁往所多玛，以利米勒从伯利恒移居摩押，雅各逃往巴旦亚 兰等事例。第二，非己所愿，被迫移居的，比如约瑟被卖往埃及，以色列人被掳等事例。第三，认识并顺服神的心意主动移动。比如亚伯拉罕离开吾珥，雅各全家下埃及，摩西带领以色列人出埃及，被掳的余民归回以色列等。
但事实上，所有的“润”，“非润”，“再润”都在上帝的手中。第一，重要的是明白神的旨意， 明确天上的异象，看清环境背后的奥秘。第二，重要的不是“润”，而是“死”。无论是选择“润”， “非润”，抑或“再润”，都应该选择的是十字架的“死”路。第三，“至我们终将要润的生命”， 我们每个人都应该渴望“润”到天上的“新耶路撒冷”。“顾之益之，导归斯土，我必建之，不 复毁之，我必植之，不复拔之（耶 24:6 文理本）”，“斯土”非地上之“斯土”，而是天上之“新城”。
最后，殷鉴不远，教会历史上关于“润”与“非润”的争论，交锋，冲突令人忧虑。尼希米 记5章1 -19节反映了归回之后，“再润”派和“非润”派之间激烈的纷争和冲突。韩国教会史上， “润”到中国东北的“独立”派，1945年后从平壤逃亡（“润”）到汉城的“北方”派，以及一直留守在南韩本土，苦苦熬过日本殖民统治的“非润”派教会之间发生的一系例矛盾和历史，希望不要在中国教会重演。
北京教会对“润, 非润, 再润” 的牧会性反思
Editor’s note: This article originated as a PowerPoint presentation at a meeting in 2022, during the pandemic. Although two years have passed, as of this writing in 2024, the insights and lessons contained within remain highly relevant and important.
1. Run, Running, Runology
The term “running” (润) has once again gone viral due to the “exodus” phenomenon that occurred after the lifting of the COVID-19 lockdown in Shanghai. It has become the latest buzzword among young Chinese people, following trends like “involution” and “lying flat.”
“Running” and “the last generation” are silent cries of despair from many Chinese young adults in their twenties and thirties who feel hopeless about their country and future. The following two examples may offer a glimpse into the increasingly apparent reality of mainland China—a hyper-controlled society in the post-pandemic era.
The first example comes from a May 25, 2022, report published by The New York Times Chinese website titled “‘The Last Generation’: The Disillusionment of Young Chinese.” The article includes the following passage:
Tongji University in Shanghai, known for its engineering and architecture programs, issued detailed instructions on how to use a mobile phone-based queuing system for the toilets and washrooms, according to a document on the system reviewed by The New York Times.
Each student would need to press ‘start’ when they left the dorm for the toilet, and press “stop” when they returned to avoid two people in the hallway at the same time, said the instructions. Each toilet run would be allowed a maximum 10 minutes. After eight minutes, the others in the queue could digitally poke the student in the toilet. After 10 minutes, the student would need to explain to the queuing group why it took so long.
The second example is an article from the Singaporean newspaper Lianhe Zaobao published on August 3, 2022, titled “About 1.2 Million Chinese Entered Malaysia in the Past Three Years with No Exit Records.“
Malaysian immigration records show that from 2018 to 2021, approximately 1.2 million Chinese nationals entered the country without any record of departure. The Islamic Party of Kedah believes that the federal government should establish a commission of inquiry to investigate this matter thoroughly.
According to the party’s newspaper Harakah on Wednesday (August 3), the chairman of the Kedah Islamic Party, Ahmad Yahya, issued a statement on Tuesday (August 2) stating that the above data is based on the recent reply from the Ministry of Home Affairs in the lower house of parliament. He said that according to the 2018 report of the Auditor General, there were more than 100,000 tourists from China and India who entered Malaysia but had no exit records.
Due to this reassessment of history, present reality, and the future, many people have chosen to “vote with their feet,” that is, to “run” (润)—to escape the mainland, to escape China.
2. The Beijing Church’s Understanding of “Running”
The immense societal tremors and crises of recent times have deeply resonated within churches in Beijing, sparking significant discussion and debate among its pastors. During the first half of 2022, amidst the pandemic and uncertainty surrounding the future of both China and the church, a crucial question emerged: “Is China Sodom or Rome?”
One perspective likened present-day China to Sodom, a nation poised to face divine wrath and inevitable judgment from heaven. This view painted a bleak picture of China’s future, characterized by prolonged suffering and despair, using evocative sayings or terms like “after tomorrow,” “misfortunes never come singly,” “where will it all end,” “one after another,” and “unending.”
However, a more prevalent perspective among pastors drew parallels between contemporary China, particularly Beijing, and the city of Rome during Augustine’s era. Despite facing internal and external turmoil, Rome embodied the duality of the “City of God” and the “City of Man,” a complexity that distinguished it from the outright wickedness of Sodom.
Those who envisioned China as Sodom presented a series of predictions regarding the future of both society and the church:
- Widespread business closures and downsizing would impact society at large, leading to discontent within the business community.
- The general populace would experience hardship and declining living standards, potentially resulting in social instability and unrest.
- The post-pandemic world could see nations distancing themselves from China, forming a united front against the country.
- The United States might implement new policies specifically targeting China.
- While large-scale monetary interventions by the state could offer temporary relief, the long-term success would hinge on factors like industrial upgrades, economic revitalization, and the resumption of foreign trade. Failure in these areas could lead to irreversible economic damage.
- The era following Putin’s leadership in Russia could bring significant changes and uncertainties.
- The upcoming leadership transition in China could trigger internal conflicts within the system, potentially escalating into widespread public protests and unrest.
- In the Taiwan Strait crisis, a possible evolution model is to continuously accept and expand Taiwan’s status and space in the process of “de-Sinicization,” without the need to declare independence, which would make the situation completely different.
In light of these potential challenges, the church in China must cultivate a heightened awareness in the following theological and pastoral areas:
- A deep understanding of the theology of the cross is crucial, encompassing its significance as theological content, methodology, and ethical framework.
- A focus on eschatology encourages a detachment from worldly concerns and a conscious awareness of our heavenly home. Recognizing the nearing of the end times fosters a sense of reverence and urgency, leading to active engagement in God’s redemptive plan.
- Beyond mere attendance at gatherings, a more profound sense of belonging and commitment to the spiritual community is essential.
- Actively questioning and responding to reality through the lens of the Great Commission is not merely a temporary measure to weather a crisis. Instead, it represents a more fundamental and conscious, deliberate response.
- The church possesses a basic understanding of the challenges it faces.
- The church requires a holistic and organized approach to address the difficulties ahead.
Specifically, the mainland church is likely to face many significant challenges, including:
- Strict community management may restrict access to church buildings, potentially leading to a normalization of online gatherings.
- Economic hardship could impact both individual members and the overall financial stability of the church.
- Circumstances may force members to relocate, leading to a decline in church attendance and participation.
- As James warns, times of turmoil often breed discord and division among believers.
- Prolonged online services may result in decreased spiritual engagement, ineffective pastoral care, and a weakening sense of commitment among members.
- Many training programs may be suspended or transitioned to online formats, potentially impacting their effectiveness.
- The current climate may present significant obstacles to evangelism and outreach efforts.
- Students may face challenges in accessing pastoral guidance and support due to restrictions and limitations.
- Amidst a changing world and the emergence of seemingly beneficial ideas and movements, the church may mistakenly confuse its own desires and ideologies with the voice of Jesus, leading to misguided pursuits.
- The church may experience internal divisions and strained relationships between different congregations, hindering inter-church collaboration and unity.
- Connections and interactions with churches outside the mainland may undergo significant changes.
The church in China must consider the possibility of extremely difficult times and focus on individual evangelism, small group discipleship, and fostering a community of deeply committed individuals. Church life within the country may become more inward-focused and individualized, reminiscent of the 1950s and 60s. In such a scenario, the church’s response to the world would primarily consist of individual faith and moral integrity, along with occasional personal evangelism efforts.
While the church is likely to experience a prolonged period of dormancy and weakness, its survival remains highly probable. The true crisis lies in the challenges related to pastoral growth, discipleship, and expansion. For most believers and churches, the immediate threat may not directly pertain to personal safety or survival.
Under such circumstances, we have noticed several important cases regarding the question of running or not running within the mainland churches.
The first one is the Shenzhen Holy Reformed Church (SHRC). As is widely known, at the end of 2019 and the beginning of 2020, sixty Chinese Christians from SHRC, led by Pastor Pan Yongguang, left their homes in Shenzhen and sought religious asylum in Jeju Island, South Korea. With the support of many, they eventually immigrated to the United States.
The second case is the large-scale emigration and missions of a certain church in Beijing. Starting in 2019, a particular church in Beijing began relocating its core theological and Christian school education personnel to a Southeast Asian country. The sudden outbreak of the pandemic significantly accelerated and even altered this process. Today, the vast majority of pastors, co-workers, and families from this church, numbering over 800 members, have migrated to this nation. However, a deeper understanding of the church’s history and theology reveals that this remarkable shift is not essentially an act of running, but rather one driven by mission, evangelism, and God’s calling.
3. Historical Inspiration
Can and should the church “run”? This is a real and present question before us. Perhaps we can glean some insights from church history.
In the late 1940s, the Chinese church faced a similar dilemma. Some individuals chose to run (either actively or passively), such as Andrew Gih, Timothy Chao, and Philip Teng. In early 1949, both Pastor Andrew Gih and Pastor Timothy Chao were invited to the United States for ministry conferences. By the time they were ready to return to China, the political landscape had shifted dramatically, blocking their path home. They arrived in Hong Kong and, independently, rented theaters to preach the gospel. In 1951, Pastor Gih established the Canaan Church in Kowloon, Hong Kong, and in the same year, Pastor Chao founded the Kowloon Ling Liang Church.
However, others chose not to run, such as Watchman Nee.
In a letter titled “Watchman Nee’s Final Exhortation,” he wrote:
Finally, apart from the basic training of believers, the spirit of evangelism, the principles of authority, and other teachings, please do not mention anything else. You are to share with those who can receive it. I sense the path before us is quite dark, but I believe there are no insurmountable challenges for a dedicated individual. The Lord reigns supreme over all; let us learn to rely on him, to both love and trust in him. He is a God brimming with compassion and glory, and we delight in approaching him to serve. Fear not, nor worry. Though we are but dust, we have received mercy and are granted the privilege to partake in this glorious service. Let us give thanks to God. In calling us to serve him, God has bestowed upon us the greatest honor. There is no greater grace than this. Amen.
We observe that at this historical turning point, at the crossroads of running and staying, Brother Watchman Nee’s unwavering focus remains on: God’s calling, God’s will, and God’s guidance.
4. Running, Staying, and Returning in the Bible
Regarding the concepts of running, staying, and returning,
Abraham stands as the forefather of the “running clan.” Let us trace his running path: from Ur of the Chaldeans to Haran, to Canaan (Shechem to Bethel), to Egypt, back to Bethel, and finally to Hebron. On a map, we can clearly see Abraham’s movements between the Mesopotamian and Egyptian civilizations, running back and forth. While his journey from Bethel to Egypt was driven by circumstance (famine, Genesis 12:9–10), the fundamental reason for Abraham’s migration from the then-center of the world, the great city of Ur of the Chaldeans, to the barren land of Hebron was rooted in God’s calling and promise (Genesis 12:1–4).
Jacob’s story appears more relatable to many of our brothers today, as he chose the path of running for personal gain. His journey took him from Canaan to Paddan Aram (where Laban lived), back to Canaan, to Egypt, and back to Canaan to return his bones. His first departure from his homeland was to escape his brother’s vengeance after committing a crime, while his second departure, descending to Egypt in his old age, was driven by the hope of family reunion. However, the true guiding force behind his running journey was his nighttime encounter with God at Bethel, where he received a message directing his path (Genesis 28:10–16).
Moses’ exodus was an unprecedented and magnificent event, a radiant chapter in history. He led the entire Hebrew nation in a collective departure from the land of Pharaoh (the word exodus itself signifies running). They endured ten plagues, crossed the Red Sea, wandered in the wilderness, faced trials and tribulations, yet persevered with unwavering determination. Their exodus ultimately triumphed, leading the Israelites to the “land flowing with milk and honey.” The origin of this remarkable journey lay in the profound burning bush vision (Exodus 3:1–21).
Jeremiah’s case was unique. He fervently encouraged the Israelites to (passively) run to Babylon (Jeremiah 24:5–7), yet he himself declined the offer to go to Babylon under the best possible conditions (Jeremiah 40:1–6). In the end, he seemed to run to Egypt in a tragic and seemingly defeated manner (Jeremiah 43:6–7). However, we believe that Jeremiah’s entire journey, from beginning to end, was under the authority of God’s word: “The word of the Lord came to Jeremiah.”
Sheshbazzar (Zerubbabel)’s return was prompted by the decree of Cyrus (Ezra 1:1–4), Ezra’s return by the decree of Artaxerxes (Ezra 7:11–20), and Nehemiah’s return by God’s calling, inspiration, and the edict of Artaxerxes (Nehemiah chapters 1–2). The Israelites believed all of these events stemmed from God’s providence and mysterious ways.
After Stephen’s martyrdom, the church faced severe persecution. Except for the apostles, the disciples scattered (went) throughout Judea and Samaria. Philip went to Samaria to preach, and he and his four daughters later settled in Caesarea. This fulfilled the mystery of the Great Commission: “You will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth” (Acts 1:8).
Paul’s life was spent traversing the eastern Roman Empire, around the Aegean Sea. He was born in Tarsus, raised in Jerusalem, and radically transformed on the road to Damascus. After Damascus, Paul journeyed through Arabia, Damascus, Tarsus, and Antioch. He made five trips to Jerusalem, three missionary journeys, and was later escorted to Rome, continuously clarifying his visionary journey (from Jerusalem to Spain, and to the ends of the earth). His life’s running journeys were all driven by the fact that Paul “was not disobedient to the heavenly vision” (Acts 26:19).
5. Conclusion
Within the Bible, the motivations for running (immigration), non-running (staying), and re-running (returning) can be categorized into three groups. First, personal reasons, such as escaping hardship or disaster. Examples include Lot leaving Abraham for Sodom, Elimelech moving his family from Bethlehem to Moab, and Jacob fleeing to Paddan Aram. Second, involuntary relocation, such as Joseph being sold into slavery in Egypt and the Israelites being taken into exile. Third, a conscious decision to move in obedience to God’s will. Examples include Abraham leaving Ur, Jacob’s family going down to Egypt, Moses leading the Israelites out of Egypt, and the exiled remnant returning to Israel.
However, the reality is that all instances of running, staying, and returning are in God’s hands. Firstly, it is crucial to understand God’s will, have a clear heavenly vision, and discern the mysteries behind our circumstances. Secondly, the emphasis should not be on running but on death. Whether we choose running, staying, or returning, we should choose the path of death on the cross. Thirdly, as we ultimately journey towards eternal life, we should all yearn to run to the New Jerusalem in heaven. “I will build them up and not tear them down; I will plant them and not uproot them” (Jeremiah 24:6). This land is not an earthly one but the heavenly new city.
Finally, let us not forget the lessons of history. The debates, clashes, and conflicts within the church regarding running and staying are concerning. Nehemiah 5:1–19 reflects the intense disputes and conflicts between the returning and staying factions after the return from exile. In Korean church history, similar conflicts arose between the independent faction that ran to Northeast China, the northern faction that fled (ran) from Pyongyang to Seoul after 1945, and the staying faction that remained in South Korea and endured Japanese colonial rule. We hope that such conflicts will not be repeated in the Chinese church.
Endnotes
Originally from "ChinaSource"
CCD edited and reprinted with permission
Beijing Pastor Reflects on Running, Staying, and Returning
