Discipling is on my mind today. There's been some talk about it around ICOC sites lately. Of course, Mr. McKean has been on his discipling rant for a while (well, since 1979 actually) decrying all these "lukewarm" churches abandoning "God's requirement of discipling". (He likes to use quotes a lot too.) There was also an article at ICOCnews about the South Florida Church making having a discipling relationships a requirement for membership. That idea did not go over well with the general ICOCnews readership. One of the most challenging comments there was from Nonnymoose (the head muckety-muck over there). He asked "Requirement for membership -- but not salvation? You are suggesting that you are quite willing to exclude brothers and sisters in Christ for not accepting your "rules bound by men" are you not?" I think that's a good question that I'm not sure how to answer yet. Maybe by the end of this I'll have one.
Beyond all that talk on the web, I've had a recent conversation with a friend over his dismay that his church is moving forward with a similar expectation. Here in Columbus too, we now have the expectation that a person will be in some sort of discipling relationship. We haven't answered the 'or else ..' part of that, nor really checked up on people, but it is still a stated requirement.
This whole discipling thing is quite a conundrum for me. It was once the hallmark of our movement. Before we were the ICOC or even the Boston Movement, we were the 'Discipling Movement' if I recall correctly. It was who we were. Back in the day, you could trace from Kip himself, down the tree through a string of discipling relationships to the new guy who was just baptized. Everyone, except Kip I guess, had a discipler.
Let me park a minute on that. Why is it that we never thought about that word, discipler? Saying it now it has a somewhat sinister sound to it. Couldn't there have been a better term? A few times in recent years, my parents have related how I told them during my college years how my discipler had approved or disapproved of certain decision I had made. They've recalled those things with a certain disdain: "We didn't like the idea, but you said your discipler had thought it was fine." I certainly can't blame them. Here's this unnamed person, not really much older than I was, with a sinister sounding title taking on the role they had always played, and should still be playing. Not that a name change to something more neutral (Life Coach? Mentor? Adviser?) would change that these relationships were frequently out of line, but still. Didn't anyone stop and think that perhaps discipler was a little harsh? No wonder Mom and Dad were peeved.
Anyway, so my church and many others are returning to some sort of discipling. One of the problems is that we are still using that same term. Anyone that's been in the ICOC three or four years or more has a very well defined idea of what that meant. It was authority. It was complete involvement in your life. It was accountability. It was advice, both solicited and unsolicited. What's weird though is that none of those things seem to be true of these new attempts at discipling, with the possible exception of Mr. McKean's, yet we are still using the same term. These are a new, kinder gentler form of discipling, intended to be closer to the Biblical collection of 'one another' scriptures. The expectation is more that we will be involved in each others lives. But we still call it 'discipling' and we wonder why folks are peeved. (Of course, the folks who are peeved would be perhaps more peeved if we called it 'mentoring' but it still smelled like discipling.)
No matter what we call it, I think the thing we blew it on in discipling before, and we risk it today as well, is that we have put the responsibility of discipling on the disciple rather than the discipler. Back in the day when i was in college, the expectation was to talk to your discipler every day. If it didn't happen, who was in trouble? Not the discipler, at least not at first. The disciple was told something like, "You're responsible for your own spiritual growth. You need to initiate." I've come to think that this is completely backwards. After all, when someone is weak or in sin, they usually don't realize it. They need someone who cares for them to take the initiative to pull them aside and challenge them. This is radical love, to care enough to put your neck, and the relationship, on the line to challenge someone.
I think we'd do much better to foster the mature giving of their knowledge & experience to others. Let's figure out how to set that expectation. That seems to better match the spirit of the one another scriptures and the heart of God. There are few folks who are able to put themselves up and go get the help they need when the need it. The theme of the Gospel is salvation, who when in danger saves themselves? So when we say we are a discpling ministry, let's make that mean not that we expect you to get yourself discipled, but that we are committed to discipling & helping you.
So to sort of address Nonny's question, I think we need a new term. Rather (and since I can't think of a good new term), we just need to live it in a new way. It's not the old power and control mind set that tells folks how they should be. Rather let it be a statement or who we are and how we are committed to treat you and each other. A statement of our commitment to you rather than an expectation for ryou to live up to. Then maybe folks, like me and my friend, who cringe a little when we talk about returning to discipling, won't be so leery.
Doug:
I'm glad you brought this subject up. Its something I've wanted to talk to you and Alan about for a while, but I've been nervous about.
I can tell you that the term "discipler" really bothers me. I know and understand the reason for discipling...but the fact that ICOC congregations are going back to it scares me a bit.
I've thought about discipling kind of like the way I've thought about Communism. Sounds great on paper, but the application doesn't seem to go very well. Maybe the new way of discipling will work better....I guess only time will tell. But I don't want to see another wedge placed between ICOC congregations and mainline church of Christ congregations. Just recently my own minister made a comment about how being associated with the Boston Movement was bad.... books I've read lately (written pre-2000) mention the ICOC as a cult. While I don't believe that, I'm afraid that the renewal of discipling will cause many to start yelling out that claim again. I'd like to talk to you and Alan about this subject more.
-Clarke
Doug, I am by far not the right person to answer the question, but I do have some thoughts on it.
1. It is good to be involved in eachothers lives- even if the people you are involved with are not as strong as they could be - the involvement and love you share together can make all the difference.
2. It is good to hold your brothers and sisters in Christ accountable - we are commanded to do so - we are our brother's keeper - but we cannot make them have a relationship with God or us...
3. AND SO...you cannot force a relationship. You cannot force love. The types of relationships that Jesus and the apostles had with the early disciples - was one of them reaching out to others - not a forced paradigm that was commanded by an organized institution. Love was given freely and freely accepted without recompense or demands.
Why do we need to add to what is already clear in scripture? Can you truly discern what is in a brother's heart? Can I or should I control a persons "personal" relationship with God?
Think of your best friends, who you would do anything for - think of the love you share with them - that is what we should have for eachother - without strings and demands attached. Perhaps some of your friends may even go to a different congregation. Are we really ready to start drawing these lines in the sand and seperate ourselves from the rest of Christianity?
Creating a new "term" for an old sin is bad. Rekindling the fire that burned the ICOC out is bad. Discipling, discipler, mentor whatever the euphemism is today - only sugar coats the bad tasting pill that many can no longer swallow.
There are Biblical reasons not to make discipling a requirement, but others have addressed that much better than I can.
I want to speak to why people feel such a reaction to the term. One major reason, I believe, is how we taught about it. Think how often you heard or said things like, "Uh-oh, I'm really going to get discipled now," or "Somebody needs to disciple that brother!" Were they implying encouragement, advice, love, and mercy? No, those statements implied rebukes and challenges.
Ironically, for every sermon I heard that said something like, "For every challenge you give, you should say 9 encouraging things," -- I heard 9 more sermons talking about how we should challenge one another.
That doesn't mean none of my discipling relationships were loving or encouraging -- several of them were. But still, the main thrust of how we defined discipling was "sharpening one another."
Another interesting thing you said was about the more mature seeking the less mature (and seems supported by Titus 2:1-8). That is contrary not only to ICOC practice, but also to the arguments against discipling that criticize the co-dependency it fosters.
Perhaps the happy medium is to teach that people are responsible for their own growth, but encourage everyone around to freely give whatever spiritual knowledge and encouragement they have. Another thing might help: to do what a book published by NavPress that I read years ago recommended: Ask permission of people to minister to them.
"I think we need a new term"
Umm, how about "friend"?
[Insert Abby Normal rant about friends and discipling relationships being somewhat overlapping sets in a venn diagram]
I'm glad that you bring up this topic. It is an interesting one to me and to others. The basic principles of the McKean "discipleship" structure are obviously flawed, humanistic, and harmful (let me know if you would like me to expand on this later). Not knowing this would mean that you have never been a part of the ICOC. The main problem that I have with "discipleship" is that it sets up a leadership structure that is not encouraged or practiced by the bible. Creating the mentorship (by any other name), the "one another" scriptures become "one over another"; which is not in the bible. In the spirit of sharpening each other, we must not create church structure. The epistles (letters to the churches) do not support this action. Paul and Timothy had a special relationship between Apostle and Evangelist which is a model on establishing a local fellowship. In those instructions Timothy (evangelist) is told how to establish leadership. The example of Evangelist was they were the workmen of the Apostles, to carry out their commands and establish the churches. Also there are commands to preach, but this is also tied to the pastoral work of the elders. Elders shepherd, deacons search, evangelist serve the apostles. There are no extra biblical directives past this (as far as I can tell, I've been know to be wrong before, but this is all from my own bible study over the past few years.) in establishing leadership. When we set up mentoring, we establish one brother (other than Elder) to be "above" another brother, and there is NO biblical example or directive to do this. Confronting a brother who has sinned against you (not against another brother, but against you, or that you have sinned against) is biblical, but that doesn't establish a leadership position. Loving your brother by rebukes, corrections, teachings and such does not make you a leader, or above another person. Designated peer to peer relationship with expectations of high accountability and correction is also not in the bible. It is neither directed nor is there an example of such a relationship. House church leader as an authority figure is also not biblical. It is not directed in the scripture either. One must examine the scripture and decide what position it will have in the structure of your church, and how far you will go beyond, above, or under the scripture and expectations of the Father. What submission and humility will you and the leadership of your fellowship have before God's word. Do you find it incomplete as to where you believe that you must have extra-biblical leadership positions such as discipler or house church leader? What – according to John 12:47-50 – do you believe the Master would have to say about that?
The danger of putting a person over another person, when not designated by the bible, you jeopardize the "account-ee" as much as the accountable. The psychological, emotional, and spiritual damage potential is almost immeasurable. Moreover, its potential has been seen in the past with the 100,000 or so "Fallaways" that the ICOC has produced in the past 30 years. People who have struggled for years and even question their faith just because they believed that the boundaries established by man are also those set by God (which is the most harmful of all the sins committed by us who were leaders back then.) are those that are hurt the most. And if you have surfed the blog's at all, you can get a real sense of what harm was caused. I implore you and the leadership of your fellowship to run far away from "Discipleship".
I'll offer a few thoughts on the discipler topic:
1) If we exclude people from our local congregation because they choose not to have a discipler, we are creating a faction based on a man-made rule. Those who create factions will not inherit the kingdom of God (Gal 5). And those who teach as doctrines the rules of men are worshipping in vain. Leaders will give an account to God for such things.
2) I challenge anyone to show me in the scriptures where one Christian is to hold another one accountable. On the contrary, Jesus instructed us to be careful NOT to do our acts of righteousness to be seen by men. He gives as examples praying, fasting, and giving. If we do our acts of righteousness because some human will be asking us about it, we will receive no reward from God. We all will give account to God. In the meantime we are to encourage one another. If our brother sins we are to rebuke him, and if he repents we are to forgive him.
Accountability implies consequenses. What consequense should a discipler be authorized to impose? If there are no consequenses, then accountability is the wrong word. Think about it.
I would say that the church leadership has a God-given responsibility to deal with false teaching, divisiveness and persistent blatant sin (1 Cor 5). Beyond that, we are to be patient with everyone. God will handle the consequenses.
3) I agree that the term "discipler" has unhealthy connotations in our fellowship due to the way it was practiced in the past. Using that word today creates confusion at best. At worst, it might lead us back where we came from.
4) The church is instructed to submit to the leaders and make their work a joy rather than a burden. So if your local leadership asks you to choose a "best friend" (by whatever name) and to practice biblical encouragement / admonition etc, then I think you should go along with it. If you can't do what you are being asked to do in good conscience, then you should discuss that with the leaders and ask for some acceptable accomodation. If they won't accomodate your conscience, and you are convinced you would be violating scripture to comply, then you might need to find some other shepherds who will accomodate your conscience.
Alan
one more thing...
If we are correct that we are not authorized to have a pope, a cardinal, a bishop elevated above the elders (and I think we are correct) then we also are not authorized to place one Christian above another, whether it be a discipler, a house church leader, a Bible talk leader, etc. And incidentally we are also not authorized to appoint a 'lead evangelist' placed over others in the ministry staff. God gives authority to whom he wishes. Who are we to presume that right?
Alan
1 Peter 4:10We are fools for Christ, but you are so wise in Christ! We are weak, but you are strong! You are honored, we are dishonored! 11To this very hour we go hungry and thirsty, we are in rags, we are brutally treated, we are homeless. 12We work hard with our own hands. When we are cursed, we bless; when we are persecuted, we endure it; 13when we are slandered, we answer kindly. Up to this moment we have become the scum of the earth, the refuse of the world.
14I am not writing this to shame you, but to warn you, as my dear children. 15Even though you have ten thousand guardians in Christ, you do not have many fathers, for in Christ Jesus I became your father through the gospel. 16Therefore I urge you to imitate me. 17For this reason I am sending to you Timothy, my son whom I love, who is faithful in the Lord. He will remind you of my way of life in Christ Jesus, which agrees with what I teach everywhere in every church.
There is structure in church and we all need spiritual fathers and mothers. Biblically those fathers were like real fathers and would become less so their children could be more. They would give so their kids could receive. They would eat the crust so their kids could have the center. I digress. However, "discipling" isn't bad if the "discipler" is the servant/lover/sufferer/etc. so the "disciplee" can be loved, spurned on, protected and grow. Unfortunately, as some have noted, the ICOC, in most cases, did the opposite.
beg wrote:
>However, "discipling" isn't bad if the
> "discipler" is the servant/lover/
> sufferer/etc.
Absolutely that is what Matt 20:25ff teaches. But note that we are not to "lord it over" one another and we are not to "exercise authority" over one another.
The example you quoted is from 1 Cor 4 (perhaps a copy / paste mixup). Anyway that is an example of Paul urging the Corinthians to follow his example. In this passage he is not "holding them accountable"--even though as an apostle he arguably had that authority. It seems to me that Paul is making an appeal as a father would to an adult child. There is no call for them to give account, and no consequense stated nor implied.
The guiding principle should be discipleship, not discipling. It should be bearing one another's burdens in order to fulfill the law of Christ. It should be the humility to share one's own crushing burdens with others who are willing to share theirs.
I'm leery of turning examples into commands. I'm leery of applying isolated examples as general principles. I'm leery of anything that gives authority to anyone but Christ. It's tempting fate. It's tempting ego, pride, the perception that one Christian must appear perfect in order to mentor another. It's tempting a fall.
My branch of the brotherhood is far from immune to this; we have it in elders who exercise authority to the point that they exorcise those who don't agree with them on every little point. We have ministers who do the same.
Who among us understands everything in scripture perfectly in order to be a worthy? To me, the whole point of the book of Job is not that we must know everything God knows, but believe everything that God is.
Wow, there hasn't been this much activity here in a long time, I'm encouraged. I'll respond later tonight or tomorrow, no time right now.
Thanks folks.
"There is structure in church and we all need spiritual fathers and mothers." -BEG-
There is structure, but not the "class" system established by the McKean paradigm. Bible talk leaders (as an "above" in authority position) are not biblical, nor House Church leader, Zone leader, Family Group leader and so forth. Discipleship isn't an actual possibility. The Master has returned to Heaven, and the Apostles have long since joined Him. Only they had the authority that we seem to apply to ourselves today. The BIBLE has the authority, only. Church structure, as designed by the Spirit is given to us evidently. Elder's shepherd, as in Psalm 23 with the rod and staff – but only in acting according to the bible. Deacons serve (or run the business of the church), and the rest of us are simply instructed to follow Christ and walk as he did (which is a touchy topic). Moreso and most of all, "Love one another." That is Church structure. ;-)
I finally have time to read through your comments and respond.
Clarke -
- Heh! I agree with you, if we go back to discipling as we once practiced it, it will be a wedge that will divide. That's not want I want to see, nor where I think my church is heading. I think that your comments point out how we really need to call it something different if we're going to do something different.JohnE - I guess I wasn't clear, I'm not advocating simply a new term. What we need is a new practice. I think that needs to be coupled with a new term to distinguish it from the old practice, but I'll take new practice called by the old name as it's the new practice that matters. Does that clear it up?
I agree that we cannot force a relationship. That was perhaps one of the biggest problems of the old way, we told folks "You will be discipled" and then told them who would do it. How arrogant, presumptuous, meddling and, I think, backward. I say we need to flip this around. Instead of trying to force folks to be discipled, let's, in Godly love, let's commit to them that we will 'disciple' them. Here's where the new term is needed because I don't mean "tell you what to do and expect you to listen to me or else". What I do mean is calling you on it when I see issues of sin in your life. That means we have to develop the kind of relationships where true honesty is possible and welcome. We have to be willing to listen more than we talk. But mostly we need to get off our butts and be willing to put our love in action, call it as you see it, listen, talk and work it out. That's the kind of 'discipling church' I'd like us to be. We will all be stronger for it.
Amy - Not a requirement of someone but a commitment to them.
I like the sound of that.Paul - Your comment tells me we really shouldn't use this term, it carries too much baggage. I do not wish for us to return to the old ways, I do not advocate a structure, and in fact would be opposed to it if it were to be suggested. I am with you entirely on your comments. What I've seen in the wake of the removal of the old discipling system is little to no Godly confrontation, rebukes, instruction or challenges. I don't want to be in a church that doesn't do that, when it's necessary (and it is for each of us more than we'd like to admit). I don't think it's an either or proposition - either you have a D-tree or you have distant and isolated relationships.
Alan - Your words are very thought provoking, thanks so much for sharing your wisdom. We must be careful not to bind things on people "for their own good". I think that's where many of these ideas come from. We don't trust that folks will on their own and we are not willing to be patient and diligent enough to deal with people's weaknesses one by one. So we set up a system and an expectation for all. There, we say dusting our hands off, we fixed that.
Keith -
Wow, yes. Thanks for sharing that.Thanks everyone, there's much here to chew on, much to bring to the leadership (some of whom read this blog occasionally). My head's swimming a bit. I'll likely have more thoughts on this later.
Alan,
Thanks for correcting my error.
Paul, yup I agree.
Doug wrote:
> We don't trust that folks will
> on their own
Jesus invited the weary and heavy laden to come to him for rest. That is servant leadership. The person who is being led is *helped* by the person leading. Their life is made perceptably better. They are motivated to come voluntarily to him for his leadership.
Jesus gives us a yoke, but it is easy. His burden is light.
Some great questions for a leader / "discipler" to ask: Would they come me if they didn't have to? (They shouldn't have to!) If not, the leader should do some self examination. Perhaps the leader is lording it over people, exercising authority over them, contrary to the command of Jesus.
We have a lot to learn about servant leadership.
Note, we have commands about "making disciples", encouraging, admonishing, etc. We don't have corresponding commands to "get yourself made into a disciple", get encouragement, get admonishment, etc.
ok enough for now. This is a hot button issue for me. That's probably obvious...
Alan
My comments reflect my experience with both the "mainline" and the ICOC. I am amazed at why we are so set on having to name something or give it a title. Many of the things that we claim as names or titles were only descriptions to God. I grew up with "if you didn't have the name "Church of Christ" on the sign in front of your building", then you weren't right according to Rom. 16:16. Paul didn't write that to give us a name, it was a description. It's Christ church. It's the church of Christ.
We've done it with Elder, Shepherd, Pastor, Deacon, Minister, Evangelist, The Kingdom and others and we are now giving titles to words I don't even see in the scriptures such as Discipler and Discipling Relationships...etc. I find it ironic that we have always claimed that denominationalism is wrong and we are not a denomination. Yet Webster defines denomination as "the act of naming".
For the last year and a half that I've been away I have been involved in peoples lives and they in mine for reasons of encouraging, correcting, rebuking, teaching, training, praying and many others and I haven't had to call it anything. What's wrong with just doing what God says without having to give it a name or title? I guess names and titles give us a sense of identity but it usually has a tendancy to divide rather than unite.
As far as a church saying that you can't be a part of this church if you are not in a discipling relationship concerns me. There were people in the church at Corinth that didn't even believe in the resurrection, (I can't figure that out either) but I do know that Paul considered them a part of the church and in I Cor. 15:1 even called them "Brothers". If Paul didn't see fit to eliminate them from the church over that, far be it from me to ask you to leave because you don't have a "discipler"
Of all the things I spoke of earlier, I speak as a guilty participant. I have a long way to go yet, but I thank God for what He has shown me and the freedom it has brought. "It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of slavery." Gal. 5:1
Hello:
I am excited to see the discussion of this idea progress as it has here. As a member of a "mainline" congregation, I am happy to see the love displayed by everyone here and the knoweldge of the scriptures. It makes me feel that unity isn't as far off as it often seems to be.
-Clarke
Ok, since "friend" didn't do it for anyone, how about, "Yea - what Bryant said."
I have the same pet peeve about Magick Words and I still like "friend" even if I'm rarely that good of a friend. Except maybe to my wife. She says I'm her best friend. :) Anyway, I have an entire rant about this that keys off of the old "Friends don't let friends drive drunk" ad campaign that I'll spare you...
Sorry that I am late to the party. I posted something about this because of a recent decision in my church to offer an 'encouragement partners' program.
Looking into the history of this concept, it is interesting that nothing similar to this is mentioned in old commentaries. Aside from the Spiritual Minders mentioned in the 5th century, having a person serve in a shepherding, discipling, or mentoring role seems to have come in the 40s and 50s through the writings of Watchman Nee. Those in America that introduced the concept in the 60s almost universally quote Nee as a reference.
Anyway, I asked myself why does this seem to spring from America? I think it comes from our soceity's intense focus on the individual. Individuals get so concerned about their own relationship with God, that in order to prevent them from performing badly (or even losing it) they look for a person to be a Catcher in the Rye. In other words, a person that helps build a fence around them so that they do not push against the boundaries that God has set.
Verses used to demonstrate why discipler's are necessary do not have that meaning in older commentaries. Tertullian's comment on Eph 5:19 is completely different than what we would experience today.
It seems to me that rather than focus on 'who is helping me' that the focus should be on 'whom can I help'. Not in this discipling type of way, but just looking for opportunities to serve. I've found there are plenty.
Thanks for the discussion here, it is great to see and reflect on.
How about "one-anothering"? This has been floated around. I personally have avoided using the word discipling (not a real word to begin with). Certainly fellowship, loving, challenging, teaching, mentoring one another, etc... are all biblical mandates. The structure or form of how that takes place is what is in question. Galatians 5:13 You, my brothers, were called to be free. But do not use your freedom to indulge the sinful nature ; rather, serve one another in love. We are allowed to chose how (not if) we are going to serve others in love. Certainly "discipling" leaves much room for how it will be executed. Small group, one on one, as needs arise, house church, etc...
I have observed that some Independent Christian Churches / Churches of Christ (instrumental) have great "one anothering". The relational paradigm for their church is primarily family. ICOC congregations have leaned toward a military paradigm for relationships. Both approaches are needed, but ICOC congregations may do well to try to introduce more of the family paradigm. "One anothering" or discipling would be less of an issue and probably have less of a rigid approach.
Sincerely,
Phil Spadaro
RestorationUnity.com