There seems to be a bit of a push in the blogs at the moment around re-thinking our model of what discipleship out to mean. From Jonathan Brink:
“But imagine for a second, after calling his disciples to follow him, he proceeded to invite them to come to the local synagogue on Sunday morning for a couple of hours and Wednesday night for another couple of hours. Forget following him around and watching Him do things. And when they got to there, he sat them down and led them through a couple of songs. Everyone sat in the same direction facing Jesus as they listened to him speak from behind a small upright box. The message was on average an hour long, tightly scripted with an introductory joke to arouse the crowd and was primarily about how to “not sin”. It usually included three points, a story from His personal life, and a summary to wrap it all up. He always finished with a challenge to his disciples to do better and closed with another song. At some point in the process he passed a large basket around expecting them to put a little something in to pay the rent and help build a larger meeting place. The reality was that those in setup were tired of unpacking and packing up each time they met in this rented building. A new, obviously larger building just made sense. As long as those in the crowd showed up, the disciples were good. Invite their friend and they were better. Serve on a committee and they were golden. Under this scenario you have to imagine the original call to “Come follow me” seems to lose its impact, doesn’t it?”
“We are all familiar with the gospel stories where Jesus selects a band of disciples, lives his life with them, ministers with them, and mentors them. This approach to the formation of followers was common in the Israel of Jesus’ day. Most rabbis would initiate and develop their schools of thought through similar means. It was this life-on-life phenomenon that facilitated the transfer of information and ideas into concrete historical situations.”
So here’s the thing. My thinking is that it is a little too simplistic to think that we could import Jesus’ 1st century Rabbi style into 21st century western culture; but I’m also of the opinion that an attempt to bring in that model without contextualization would at least be a big step forward from the status quo model that Jonathon describes in the first quote.
There’s your question: what does Jesus model of discipleship best look like in contemporary culture? I’ll give you a hint - don’t start with existing church structure as your framework.
25 Comments
Dare i break out this one:
The Shaping of Things To Come
Nah, not for now. One of the missional churches that i know of, although they would hardly call themselves a church, operated out of a cafe, where the owners and some of the staff were Christians, and met in an upper room, other staff slowly became interested and other regulars at the cafe as well. Never pushed upon people, but always just there.
Another interesting one is currently a group of friends from Canberra, who usually worship at a very diverse range of churches, have decided to meet together at a local pub on a Sunday afternoon for fellowship. Church in the world, but still an attractional ministry, and primarily for Christians. A step in that direction none-the-less.
Ooops, i think i broke Wordpress… Geoff, maybe you can fix that. Its probably to do with the link i posted.
See, the thing is Chris, a model of church that just changes the setting, doesn’t change anything about how you actually disciple one another. Your model of discipleship still centres around a weekly meeting, not an experience of shared life with one another.
There’s always that tension between idealism/best-practice, and the pragmatism of working with what we already have.
What’s even more complicating is that if we leave the tradition for a new paradigm, but we don’t significantly change our attitudes and actions, then the application of the new paradigm will rapidly look a lot like what it left behind.
As far as I know days usually come packaged in weeks, and so anything with any consistancy might look like it’s just another weekly meeting… and in our very calendar orientated culture that works… but does it dominate the function? Does it have to?
I guess that’s what you’re getting at with this post… what should we focus on being, rather than focusing on what we’re “not being”.
There was a panel of experts on the show “difference of opinion” last night discussing the need for review in the structure of healthcare… and the australian doctor who had been working with the WHO overseas made the point in paraphrase: ‘we need to look first at what the need is, then at what resources we have, and then we need to find the best, and most equitable application of those resources to the needs.”
I think in any context the dynamic question of “what is the need?” will define what the response should be. In relation to discipleship then, what is the need?
Geoff, I would suggest that the context of discipleship for today’s world is not far from the small groups we currently have. They meet in homes and empower the everyday, unordained leader to lead. They allow real world conversation and engagement that doesn’t happen on Sunday’s.
What has been missing has been mission. An inward and outward mission of restoration and reconciliation. We did this in our church and it created a radically different experience. Our pastor even participated as just a participant, not a leader. We focused on restoration and reconciliation and it worked. It took close to four years to really create a culture around discipleship but it was worth it.
Thanks so much for coming on here and commenting, I hope you find some interesting conversation.
Discipleship without mission ends up looking like a Bible study for people who all know the right answer. We end up with all the orthodoxy and very little orthopraxy.
Jesus wasn’t interested in getting to the right answer. He was interested in restoration. His platform was community in mission. This simple element changed everything for us.
Something I’ve been pondering recently… especially in relation to the discombobulation of our once passionate young adults small group: When it comes to mission do we really lack mission? or do we simply lack a cohesive framework for discussing and co-ordinating our individualised senses of mission?
I don’t think anyone will deny that committing to the new missions of our new community in new ways all the time became too much hard work, and left us wondering what was wrong with the old ones.
To me what I think really occurs when groups claim to be getting more “mission focused”, whether by reading McLaren, or Warren, or Budha or Marx (all clearly promote the same notion of balancing right mindedness and right action) is this:
People start conversing collectively, because having a collective conversation about mission has become a priority.
It comes down to the very thing Paolo Freier promotes… basing much of his argument on Marx… dialectic… conversation… dialogue.
But not just any conversation… focused>>focusing conversation.
This is what each of these teachings gives us a framework to do!
What I want to be quoted for saying when I die:
My final thought is this: Maybe part of our mission is to help others discover theirs, and support them in persuing it. Perhaps sometimes rather than dragging people into church and trying to tack them into an existing mission system… we should seek to understand what their mission is, and put the power of the church behind it.
How about we put the horse in front of the cart for once.
P.S. there’s gotta be a temptation to accuse me of describing self-centered individualism… so let me clarify… when I say each person’s “mission” I absolutely mean God’s mission as it will be lived out by that individual… and of course, in turn that will serve, not hurt, community.
Well Geoff, I don’t see how you can escape individuality in this… we have a whole bunch of free willed individuals who choose how they will live their lives…
I mean its a bit like saying when you buy a puzzle, all you have is a puzzle… which is not quite true… you have peices… individual peices. Of course each individual peice is a part of the rectangular square edged whole… but each peice is also has its own unique, curvy outline.
If God is in charge of individual mission he’s equally in charge of unity… he designed the puzzle, our challenge is to work out how it fits together.
Because sometimes the role that the very gifted worship-leader type needs to play is to be the person who cleans the toilets. That doesn’t make sense if your paradigm starts from a place of individual mission: it’s a huge waste of talent, and doesn’t seem to fit with that idea.
But in the context of a greater mission - cleaning the toilet (or whatever) becomes the part you have to play in a bigger mission. It means that you understand that you’re not working as a “lone ranger”, but a part of the much bigger movement in the Kingdom of God
Geoff, I think you are both saying similar things from different directions…
Was tent making for Paul his worship leading or toilet cleaning?
He certainly was an individual on a mission *but* he had the humility to recognise that “his” mission was a part of the larger part.
Your concern over the “my mission” notion is well founded as correcting a “God and me” “I am special” individualistic mindset, but is it biblical to say that mission is not something that God has for the individual?
Wow Geoff, I don’t quite know how I managed to come across like I was suggesting that individuality in mission meant that people got to be the boss of the world and have all the glamour and none of the hard work…
What I had in mind actually was that in general the whole thing is really hard work, and difficult and engaging, and often leaves you wondering why you bother trying… and that rather than adding extra burdens to people’s list of things to figure out about life… it might be nice to find out whatever it is they’re allready struggling with, and support them in that.
For me the idea of ‘mission’ and the idea of personal harship, struggle, challenge, weakness, uncertainty etc. are inseperable.
In many ways the way I see meaning in these things is much more eastern than it is traditional western christian, but I still use the same words to describe it, so I can see why it might be confusing.
Definitely to: ’so what if it’s hard’, it never was going to be easy, but it can’t possibly be an individualistic thing - where then does that leave the body of Christ?
Personal hardship is part of life, it’s the repercussions of sin perhaps even corporately (this is not an exhaustive understanding).
It’s not about what we (or I) can do at all. It’s about joining with God in what he’s doing whether we like or not, whether it’s our within our ‘talent’/scope or not. Why be stagnant and comfortable and talented?
Maybe life isn’t about figuring out life or helping others to do so (damn where does that leave me… woah too much to think about!)?
Maybe mission is distinct from our personal well-being and totally and utterly concerned with ‘the other’?
there… now what is ‘living’?
The basic “church” is formed when two people meet together in the name of God. Once we are willing to dedicate ourselves to God (no “if”), our mission will be clear. The rest God will guide.
Okay so let’s run with this idea about being totally other focused for a second, what does that look like?
Do I stop thinking about eating meals?
Do I wait for my community to tell me where I should work and what I should do?
Do I choose my life’s direction according to what others want from me?
If Jospeh was being ‘other focused’ he wouldn’t have told his brothers about his dream… he wouldn’t have spent 40 years locked up, and he wouldn’t have saved Isreal. You want to tell me God wants everyone in a comfy urban missional small group?
There’s 40 whole years we could point the finger at Joseph and say “look where your selfishness got you, look at the fruit of your folly.”
When God makes a tree, the branch doesn’t know what the roots are doing. The leaves don’t know where the sap goes. But sure enough, day in, day out, its a tree. The roots draw up water, the leaves soak up oxygen and sunlight… and the sap carries the nutrients and fluids to every cell in the tree.
Is it not enough sometimes to know you are a leaf, and to go about your leafy business?
Tim,
I would suggest the mission is both inward (a restoration of the of the heart) and outward (a restoration and reconciliation) with the world around us. Mission draws us into both. If we never restore our own heart, we miss the mission’s intentional to restore individuals.
But your comment sounds like you are wrestling with that very thing.
Yeah, I think you put it a little more eloquently than I did.
I’ve spent a fair bit of time studying and working with the idea of intentional community… and one thing I’m pretty sure it’s not, is simple, or easy.
Everyone has their own unique angle on what purpose and direction should be followed. One of the most interesting approaches to group facilitation I encountered was based on Taoism… and the idea of not fighting the energy that exists in a group, instead, harnessing it and guideing it in a positive direction.
It’s just that the idea of being ‘united’ and ‘other focused’ suddenly starts to look like another reason to force the minions to submit to one power-person’s perspective on how ‘chuch’ should operate.
Democracy? Autocracy? or something in between? What does the kind of leadership structure that makes this work actually look like?
I would look into the distinction of Communitas. Foster and Hirsch talk extensively about it may be what you are looking for.
Sounds interesting! Where do I go to find it?
You can also find a good explanation of Dr. Turner’s work in Wikipedia.