The term “vision” in the Bible carries rich and multifaceted meanings, encompassing prophetic divine revelations as well as human dreams or imaginations. In the modern era, the term is also used in management science, becoming an important concept for organizational development, and influencing contemporary church governance and church growth movements. This article will trace the etymology of “vision”, its biblical usage, Jewish and Greco-Roman backgrounds, understandings in the patristic period, and then move into its applications in modern management. The discussion concludes with reflections on the controversies surrounding the use of “vision” in church growth strategies.
II. Hebrew and Greek Bible Usage
The primary Hebrew words in the Old Testament translated as “vision” are ḥāzôn (חָזוֹן) and marʾāh (מַרְאָה). ḥāzôn denotes prophetic revelation, divine communication, or foresight (Isa 1:1; Dan 8:13). 1 Samuel 3:1 mentions that “visions were rare”, indicating that visions are a characteristic of theophany (God’s appearance to humans). Another set of words, מַרְאֶה / מַרְאָה (mar’eh / mar’ah), refers “to see”, “sights” or “visions”. Visions often appear alongside God’s will, judgment, and salvation. ¹
“Intertestamental Literature (Second Temple Jewish Literature): Books such as 1 Enoch contained numerous apocalyptic visions (journeys to heaven, angelic interpretations, etc.). These visions revealed eschatological and heavenly mysteries, became an important mode of understanding for the Jewish communities to ascertain God’s will, and profoundly influenced the New Testament’s view of revelation. ²”
The Greek Septuagint and the New Testament use (ὅραμα) (horama) to express “vision” (Acts 10:3, Peter’s vision), while ὅρασις (horasis) refers to divine appearances (Luke 24:23; 2 Cor 12:1). ² Related terms such as ὄψις, ὁράω cover ordinary “seeing” and spiritual “visions”. Visions served as important means of mission and revelation: Peter sees the sheet with unclean and clean animals (Acts 10), leading to the opening of the gospel to Gentiles; Paul in 2 Corinthians 12 describes being “caught up to the third heaven”, acknowledging that “visions and revelations” are key aspects of spiritual experiences. Visions in the NT are often accompanied by the Holy Spirit or angels, and have the function of guiding missions or revealing God’s plans. ³
Summary: Visions in the biblical canon typically have (1) a divine source (Yahweh or the Holy Spirit), (2) an interpretive framework (interpreted by prophets or apostles), (3) communal verification (consistent with the covenant and church mission). Visions lacking these elements are often viewed as suspect.
III. Greco-Roman and Jewish Literature
Greco-Roman sources used horama more broadly to mean a sight, spectacle, or dream, not necessarily divinely inspired. Philosophical writers (e.g., Plutarch) and medical texts also used it to describe psychological phenomena or hallucinations. However, dreams and oracles were also common ways for the gods to communicate with humans (such as divine dreams in Homer’s epics and the ecstatic state of the priestess at the Delphic Oracle). These visions were often related to public decision-making or political actions. ³
Visions in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Enochic literature often depict “ascensions to heaven”, “angelic guidance”, and “eschatological judgment”. This type was familiar to early Christians, becoming a shared language for interpreting prophets and revelations.
Summary: While Jewish tradition linked visions with God’s revelation, Greco-Roman culture often used the term descriptively or superstitiously. When New Testament authors use the term “vision”, they both inherit the Jewish apocalyptic tradition and interact with Greco-Roman religious experiences, yet redefine it. Only visions granted by the one true God possess true authenticity and authority.
IV. Patristic Interpretations
Early Church Fathers emphasized discernment between true and false visions.
Origen (3rd century) affirmed visions’ role in knowing God intellectually through the “vision of the heart” and “perception of the mind”, not the bodily eye, but insisted they must be interpreted through the Bible with the help of the Holy Spirit. ⁴
Augustine (4th-5th century) described his own spiritual dreams and contemplations, but distinguished “divine illumination” from “fantasies”. He asserted that visions must confirm to faith norms and biblical teachings, and distinguished corporeal, spiritual, and intellectual visions (De Genesi ad litteram). ⁵
Other Church Fathers often recorded visions of martyrs and saints, but generally emphasized standards of testing such visions against the orthodox faith, apostolic tradition, and church witness (1 John 4:1).
Summary: Early church fathers did not deny visions, but limited their interpretive scope to avoid departing from orthodox doctrines.
V. Controversies in Modern Church Growth
During the classical and medieval periods, the vocabulary of “vision” was widely applied in mysticism, hagiography, and allegorical exegesis. In modern times, the term “vision” has entered the field of management science, adopted by businesses, nonprofit organizations, and churches in “mission/vision statements”, no longer necessarily carrying connotations of supernatural revelation. ⁶
The vocabulary of “vision” entered modern management studies in the 20th century, notably through Peter Drucker, who emphasized organizational mission and long-term goals. Later leadership theory (e.g., James MacGregor Burns, John Kotter) popularized “vision casting” as essential for motivating organizations.
In today’s church context, there are two common usages of “vision”:
Organizational management (vision statement) — borrowing concepts from the corporate (secular) organizations (mission and vision statements, strategic planning) as a tool in church growth or mobilization. It does not presume a new revelation from God.
Biblical/prophetic vision — claimed to be a direct revelation from God, carrying spiritual authority. It needs to be tested by Scripture and the faith community.
Appearance of “Vision” in Management Science Vocabulary
In the mid-20th century, management guru Peter Drucker advocated that businesses need “clear goals and vision” to mobilize organizational strength. During the 1950s–1960s, the concept of the “vision statement” was introduced into management studies. ⁶ Later, Jim Collins and Jerry Porras, in “Built to Last”, proposed the concept of the “visionary company” , emphasizing that leaders must have a long-term vision. Since the 1980s, a “vision statement” has become a standard tool in corporate management and nonprofit governance.
Since the 1970s, vision statements have also been used in the church growth movement in the U.S.
Vision Applications in the Church Context and Leader Figures
Proponents:
Rick Warren (Saddleback Church, “The Purpose Driven Life”, “The Purpose Driven Church”) argued that “a clear vision” helps churches in shepherding and focusing on their mission. ⁷
Bill Hybels (Willow Creek Church) emphasized that a declaration of vision by church leaders can inspire the congregation to get more involved in church services.
John Maxwell (pastor and leadership author) integrated leadership principles with the Bible, teaching that a leader must be able to clearly articulate a “vision”.
Critics/Opponents
Some Reformed and conservative theologians criticized this practice as bringing corporate thinking into the church, commercializing church governance, undermining the essence of the gospel, and promoting “prosperity theology” and “numbers-driven” priorities.
John Piper cautioned against applying business language to the church. ⁸
Other notable representatives include David Wells (“No Place for Truth”) and John MacArthur, who stressed that spiritual shepherding surpasses strategy and argued that “vision casting” risks undermining biblical authority.
Controversies from the Charismatic Movement
Certain charismatic movements (such as the New Apostolic Reformation) regard a leader’s vision statements as revelatory, leading to debates over doctrine and authority.
Case Studies
Positive:
Saddleback Church: Through clear vision statements and small group strategies, it grew rapidly and developed into a global network.
Negative:
Willow Creek Church: In the 2007 “Reveal” study, it admitted that an emphasis on vision and activities had not effectively cultivated disciples, eventually leading to adjustments in its church model.
Some megachurches collapsed quickly after the downfall or scandals of leaders because their structure was overly centered on “the leader’s personal vision” (e.g., Mars Hill Church).
Discernment Principles
How to discern a vision as God’s revelation or merely a strategic tool? Here are a few questions to ask:
Ask if it is a “direct word from God” or merely a “strategic plan”.
Ask if it is subject to the oversight of a group of leaders/believers.
Ask if its purpose is to glorify God and build up the spiritual lives of believers.
VI. Conclusion and Reflection
In Scripture, “vision” belongs to a rich theological category. In the Old Testament, חָזוֹן refers to authoritative prophetic revelation; in the New Testament, *ὅραμα* / *ὀπτασία* describes spiritual experiences guided by the Holy Spirit or angels.
In the context of ancient cultures, “visions” were a common religious phenomenon, found in Greco-Roman religious experiences, Jewish apocalyptic traditions, and other classical texts. These bore similarities to biblical forms but did not necessarily uphold biblical authority. The early Church Fathers affirmed the reality of visions, yet did not accept them unconditionally; instead, they established theological and communal mechanisms of discernment.
In today’s church, the dual usage of “vision” (“spiritual revelation” vs. “management strategy”) has emerged. Confusing the two results in misunderstandings and controversies. Guided by the Holy Spirit, the church should clearly distinguish between the two meanings, avoid a dualistic tendency between church and society/science; exercise caution over whether proclaimed divine visions received by church leaders are from God, uphold the principle of testing by Scripture and faith community; and examine whether modern management tools surpass their auxiliary role and hinder spiritual guidance.
End Notes
Brown, Francis, S. R. Driver, and Charles A. Briggs. The Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon. Oxford: Clarendon, 1906.
Collins, John J. The Apocalyptic Imagination: An Introduction to Jewish Apocalyptic Literature. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998.
Liddell, Henry George, and Robert Scott. A Greek-English Lexicon. Revised and augmented throughout by Sir Henry Stuart Jones. Oxford: Clarendon, 1940.
Origen. On Prayer. Translated by Rowan A. Greer. New York: Paulist Press, 1979.
Augustine. Confessions. Translated by Henry Chadwick. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1991.
Drucker, Peter F. The Practice of Management. New York: Harper & Row, 1954.
Warren, Rick. The Purpose Driven Church: Growth without Compromising Your Message and Mission. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1995.
Piper, John. Brothers, We Are Not Professionals: A Plea to Pastors for Radical Ministry. Nashville: B&H Publishing, 2002.
The author is from the Song of Songs Fellowship and is the founding co-worker of The Pulse.
我和女兒依偎在一起，享受著這一刻的寧靜。女兒率先打破平靜，問道：“媽媽，你在想什麼？”我回答說：“看到對岸的燈光，想起了幾年前我們兩個共同閱讀《The Great Gatsby》（《了不起的蓋茨比》）的時候。”這本書是高中英文課必讀的一本書，書中有一段蓋茨比在夜晚看著長島對岸燈光的描寫，讓我至今難忘：“他朝著幽暗的海水，把兩隻手臂伸了出去。那樣子真古怪，並且儘管我離他很遠，我可以斷定他正在發抖。我也情不自禁地朝海上望去，可什麼都看不出來，除了一盞又小又遠的綠燈，那也許是一座碼頭的盡頭。”我依稀記得，女兒當時要寫一篇作業，分析《了不起的蓋茨比》中的幾個人物，我們倆一起讀書、一塊兒討論。她寫人物分析，我提出修改意見，有論證，有說服，也有笑聲。現在想想，這些都是甜蜜的回憶。
文化廣泛而複雜，如何認識分析是個難題。本文介紹的實用模型，是由荷蘭心理學家霍夫斯泰德提出的研究文化差異的理論。此模型基於1967至1973年對跨國公司 IBM 在不同國家接近12萬名員工的大型調查所建立，後又擴充發展，被廣泛應用於跨文化交流、國際管理等各個領域。按聖經教導，文化反映神的創造，同時又被人的罪污染，好壞善惡共存。但文化中，特別是在人的行為模式上，也有很多中性地帶，並不涉及道德判斷。比如，有些文化強調守時，有些文化是任務導向，有些文化是關係導向，等等。瞭解不同文化的側重和特徵，對信仰傳播和教會建造具有重要意義。
霍夫斯泰德文化維度理論模型提出了六個文化維度，分別是：權力距離（Power Distance）、個人主義與集體主義（Individualism vs. Collectivism）、不確定性規避（Uncertainty Avoidance）、男性化與女性化（Masculinity vs. Femininity，或進取心 Motivation Toward Achievement/Success）、長期導向與短期導向（Long-term Orientation vs. Short-term Orientation），以及放縱與約束（Indulgence vs. Restraint）。
四、男性化與女性化（MAS）Masculinity vs. Femininity（或進取心 Motivation Toward Achievement/Success）
男性化，或進取心指數 MAS，衡量社會中人們對成功的重視。在 MAS 高的社會中，人們不論男女，都更重視成就與完成任務，更富有競爭精神、自信與野心，重視財富和社會資源的積累，男女分工更加明確。反之，在 MAS 低的社會中，人們更重視人際關係、合作、照顧弱者和生活品質。
各國男性化指數（MAS）
中國
66
俄國
36
墨西哥
69
香港
57
法國
43
美國
62
韓國
39
德國
66
伊朗
43
台灣
45
英國
66
印度
56
日本
95
丹麥
16
以色列
47
男性化指數可以表徵整個社會的慕強傾向。從表中可看出，日本 MAS 指數非常高，是個超級慕強的社會。日本的宣教士也曾分享，在日本傳福音很困難，部分原因在於他們的慕強心理，使他們很難接受一位謙卑軟弱，甚至死在十字架上的神。中國社會和美國社會的 MAS 指數都較高，分別是 66 和 62，但兩者的表現有些不同。在美國社會，可能更多表現在對競技體育的熱衷上；而在中國，則集中表現在對學業的推崇。中國古代的科舉制度，“萬般皆下品，惟有讀書高”；“十年寒窗無人問，一舉成名天下知”。演變到今天，即成為千軍萬馬過獨木橋的高考制度。這種文化也深刻影響北美華人，特別是在對孩子的養育上。在 MAS 低的社會，學業普通是常態，更符合人群的能力分佈；而在 MAS 高的國家，學業優秀才是常態，給普通正常的孩子和他們的家長帶來很大的壓力和挫折感。
參考書籍： Bailey, Justin A. Interpreting Your World: Five Lenses for Engaging Theology and Culture. Ada: Baker Academic, 2022. Tillich, Paul. Theology of Culture. New York: Oxford University Press, 1959. Vanhoozer, Kevin J., Charles A. Anderson, and Michael J. Sleasman. Everyday Theology (Cultural Exegesis): How to Read Cultural Texts and Interpret Trends. Ada: Baker Academic, 2007.
