• Abstract and Figures
• Public Full-text

Discussion Paper on Discipling and Related Issues by Michael Cameron February, 2003

Introduction

The aim of this essay is to biblically examine the doctrine of “discipling”, for the purpose of reviewing the way we organise and structure relationships in the church. It is always helpful to review practices in the church from time to time, to ensure that they are still helpful and relevant to the needs of the church. This is particularly important when these practices have been publicly acknowledged by authorised leadership as not being essential for salvation, and not explicitly taught in scripture (Doug Jacoby, 2001etc). In such conditions, such practices must be regarded as traditions of the church rather than institutions of God. For this reason, the attitudes which must prevail when discussing these issues must be those relating to disputable matters, since they are not core commandments and doctrines of scripture.

The temptation will always be to brand someone who wishes to express an opinion about these issues as being divisive, but the biblical doctrine about divisiveness is not referring to having such opinions, particularly when expressing them in legitimate forums, in accordance with scripture. Divisiveness refers rather to teaching falsely on core doctrinal matters, or making disputable matters into contentious issues, by lobbying to make them essential, core doctrines. This was the issue with circumcision in the early church. It was not wrong to be circumcised as a Christian per se, since Paul himself instructed Timothy (a half Greek) to be circumcised - for practical reasons to do with access to synagogues and the Temple I assume. But it was wrong when certain people made it into a contentious issue by teaching that it was mandatory.

Romans 14 makes it clear that we are free to hold different views on disputable issues, but also shows that we must not use our freedom with such views in such a way that they harm the faith of others. We can do this by inflicting our views on others against their will, or by expressing our freedom in our views in such a way that others are offended, who consider them to be wrong. Nonetheless, we are to gently teach the biblical truth to such people, such that if an “offensive” view is not actually wrong biblically, they will come to see this over time.

Definition of discipling

Discipling is the structuring of relationships in a church which involves assigning a more advanced disciple to befriend, instruct and hold accountable, one or more less advanced disciples. Advancement is not necessarily related to age in years, nor even to age as a disciple. It is assessed generally upon the usefulness of the person to achieve the overall aim of increasing the church membership (to the glory of God). Such qualities as good people skills, natural zeal and dynamism, spirituality (in heart and intent, not necessarily maturity), and “sharpness” (meaning a healthy quotient of intelligence, sporting prowess, good looks and worldly success) are important factors in elevation in the structure. Two other main factors in advancement are harmony with the direction of the leadership and proven track record in converting people. The entire church is linked in this structure, such that everyone reports to someone above them, who reports to the next level up, all the way to the leader of the movement, thus forming a classical pyramid control structure.

Directives are passed down the levels to the bottom, and concerns are passed up the levels to the top. The whole system works if everyone is in harmony with the directives at a heart level, following them and passing them down without reinterpretation or “filtering.” Necessarily, the directives often go beyond core biblical matters into areas of specific human systems and techniques.

Abstract

I will address the following issues in this essay.

A. Is discipling biblical?

Here I will review some of the commonly quoted scriptures and assess their relevance and application.

B. Some positive outcomes from our discipling system.

Here I will look at some positive outcomes of discipling, despite its problems.

C. Historical background – action and reaction.

Here I will endeavour to give some historical background to the origins of the discipling concept. D. Legalism and freedom in disputable matters.

Here I will discuss further the concept of imposing a practice without biblical support as a mandatory

law or requirement for salvation.

E. The effect of discipling on the possibility of unity with other non-denominational Churches of

Christ.

Here I will discuss the effect of discipling as a wall of tradition, separating churches which could

otherwise move towards unity and fellowship.

F. The implicit teaching of discipling.

Here I will look at the concept of implicit teaching versus explicit teaching. Discipling has an implicit

message which is very powerful and often quite emotionally debilitating, even when all the explicit

teaching is good.

G. Unity versus uniformity

Here I will discuss the biblical concept of unity, as opposed to the false concept of unity which refers

rather to uniformity.

H. Responsibility for others or for ourselves?

Here I will discuss whether we should feel responsible for the decisions of others, or just our own.

I. Peer group reasoning ethic versus positional authority ethic.

Here I will address the different ways that decisions can be made in the church, and the values attached

to position versus reason in this process.

J. Leadership structure in the New Testament

Here I will review some scriptures regarding the leadership structure of the first century church.

K. The need of the hour – respect for older Christians.

Here I will describe the most clear and present danger to the church: losing older Christians, and how

we can avoid this.

L. The plan: healthy mentoring based on friendship and freedom.

Here I will describe how mentoring, deep friendship and training can still exist in a healthy sense,

without a discipling structure present. We can still use the lessons learned from discipling – namely depth and openness of relationships, but apply these more broadly to all of our relationships. I will

present a plan for a new leadership structure, based more firmly on Biblical principles.

M. A suggested implementation program and teaching program, to assist in the transition.

Here I will suggest a teaching program in broad terms, and a general strategy for implementing change

in such a way as to minimize the impatience of those who want change, and also minimize the panic

and uncertainty of those who don’t.

N. A vision for the future.

Here I will briefly paint a picture of how I believe the church will emerge after the transition process is

complete, and the impact that will be possible in the community as a result. A. Is discipling biblical?

1. Of course, the number one reference that has been used to support discipling is Matthew 28:18-20

______

2. All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all

nations, baptising them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching

them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of

the age.

______

3. I think that the key to this verse is the interpretation of “teaching them to obey everything I have

commanded you”. We have always taught that this means “teaching people to obey by making sure

that they do obey through human accountability measures”. We have tended to conveniently ignore the

other possible interpretation; that it means “teach people to have their own convictions about obeying

Jesus, such that they don’t need accountability of man, because they realise it is Jesus that they are

really accountable to.” On the strength of what is there, this interpretation works just as well, and in

my view is infinitely better supported by the rest of the New Testament. This interpretation leads to the

antithesis of the discipling concept of making sure everyone does what they are supposed to. It puts the

responsibility fairly and squarely on the individual’s shoulders - to obey God, to remain faithful and so

on. It removes their dependence on man, and replaces it with dependence on God. It removes the

crippling co-dependency of relationships, and brings about a true spirituality and maturity. Surely this

is the outcome God is wanting.

4. The other related key point to the verse is what kind of disciples we are making – disciples of us or of

Jesus? If we use this verse as a support for discipling relationships, then we are using it to advocate

making disciples of us, as opposed to just disciples of Jesus. If someone becomes a disciple of Jesus,

then they are answerable to him, imitate him, learn from him and listen to him. If we are making disciples of us, then these things apply to us instead, and to Jesus only in a secondary sense – follow us

(1) as we (hopefully) follow Jesus (2). Clearly the word disciple is used in the New Testament for a

disciple of Jesus. We have to scour the annals of the early church Fathers to try to find one or two scant

references to anything even vaguely like human discipling relationships. They generally had chosen

mentor relationships, based on respect - like the ones I am advocating in this paper. In one reference I

have read, they were assigned, but this was in the circumstance of someone converted by a travelling

preacher (John the Evangelist), only for the purpose of initial training of a new convert in the local

church. In this particular example, the system failed terribly as the assigned mentor did a miserable

job, and John had to come back and pick up the pieces himself. If the early church’s practices were a

developed system of accountability like our own, the New Testament and the writings of the early

church fathers would be as full of references to it as our own records and writings are. We would see

tallies and queries of Bible reading times, evangelism targets, growth goals and stat sheets of various

types. The letters written would not simply be focused on doctrinal matters, but on performance,

growth, reducing fall-aways and increasing baptisms. But I couldn’t find any of this. Certainly there is

nothing in the New Testament like this. The bottom line is that this verse doesn’t necessarily make the

case for discipling relationships at all, and considering the absence of any evidence for our

interpretation, most likely makes a powerful point against it.

______

5. 2 Timothy 2:2

And the things you have heard me say in the presence of many witnesses entrust to reliable men who

will also be qualified to teach others.

______

6. This verse is to be seen in the context of the whole book, in which Paul is constantly urging Timothy to

protect the truth of the gospel, probably because Paul was aware that this may be his last chance to

write to anyone, since he was facing death. So he says in Ch 1:13 “What you have heard from me,

keep as the pattern of sound teaching, with faith and love in Christ Jesus. Guard the good deposit that was entrusted to you – guard it with the help of the Holy Spirit who lives in us.” After the quoted

section in Ch 2 above, Paul goes on to say in Ch 2:15 “Do your best to present yourself as one

approved, a workman who does not need to be ashamed and who correctly handles the word of truth.”

We can see the same theme of sound teaching appear in 2:25, 3:10, 3:14 –17 and 4:1-5. So what did

Paul have in mind? A system in which inexperienced, young, zealous Christians are placed in a

teaching role, often over more experienced veterans? A system in which almost everyone was a

teacher, and everyone was a leader except for the very bottom rung? Personally I don’t think so. I think

Paul wanted Timothy to find the most qualified, reliable, experienced people, and entrust them with the

responsibility of being teachers for the body of Christ. I think that the excesses and abuses and

insensitivities we have all experienced with young, zealous, inexperienced discipling, were precisely

the kind of things this instruction of Paul was intended to guard against.

7. But let’s look at the other side of the argument too. It can justifiably be said that sometimes the older

Christians are not fulfilling their role for whatever reason, perhaps because of a lack of forgiveness due

to accumulated hurts and disappointments. Very often, it is the younger Christians who are the most

zealous and the most willing to take on responsibility. Quite often we can feel that if they are kept

down it will prevent them from growing, and make them disenchanted with the Church, a Church that

will be perceived by them as slow moving and stagnant, even luke-warm. My belief is that the reason

for this perception is the fact that we have essentially one role to fill, one way to move forward – and

that is leadership with all its responsibility, its need for accurate Biblical teaching, and also for wisdom

in decision making. If we had other ways for young, zealous people to contribute, other ways in which

they could feel needed, then perhaps this problem could be overcome without entering the cycle of

inexperience and destruction and hurt in leadership.

8. There are many lists of spiritual gifts in the New Testament, but perhaps it could be said that we don’t

give much weight to some of those mentioned in terms of recognised roles in the church, like we do to

others. In Romans 12:4-8, several non-miraculous gifts are mentioned, including serving, teaching,

contributing to the needs of others, leadership and showing mercy. Of course, all of these things happen in our churches, but it seems a precious few people in our fellowship can say any of these gifts

(or any others mentioned in the New Testament for that matter) is their “role”. However, the fact that

everyone has a “role” seems to be the whole point of the passage. So perhaps we need to move towards

a greater recognition of other roles apart from leadership, so that more people can feel that they have a

means for truly serving the church, moving forward, and feeling that they have a needed role in things.

9. The other thing to note in this passage is the fact that teaching, prophesying and leading seem to be

described as distinct and separate roles. Perhaps we can take a slight liberty by making “prophesying”

to be equivalent to “preaching with specific exhortation to repent” in our modern day circumstances.

We can see here that it is not necessary that everyone who is a “leader” needs to specialise in all three

– leading, prophesying and teaching. Of course, as with all of these gifts, the fact that one does not

have a specific gift does not remove the need to be involved in that function at times, so it is not a

question of being limited generally. We all need to serve, we will all teach and admonish one another,

we will all give, all lead in some sense, and all show mercy. But that doesn’t remove the fact that these

things are mentioned as specific roles, designated to specific people, who specialise in these areas

more than in others. It is this sense of specialisation which creates the feeling of being needed and

interdependent, and which increases unity overall. Teachers don’t need to worry about “cranking the

ministry” so much as feeding the flock a balanced diet, so those who are not “crankers” can be utilized

nonetheless. In our movement, we have so few teachers, but so many people with so much wisdom,

balance, experience and Biblical knowledge. Why is this?

10. I don’t believe that the lists described in the Bible were necessarily intended to be complete, since it is

the principle of working together, and being interdependent which seems to be the main thrust of the

lists. The fact that every time a list is compiled, it is very different from the others attests to that. There

are clearly going to be new roles brought about by new technology – WEB page coordinators,

technical set up and so on. It is true that we do have some people doing these jobs in the church right

now. These people are likely to feel more a part of the church because of this. However perhaps now

there can be both a greater recognition of these roles in spiritual terms, and a greater effort to find and acknowledge other ones too. In the Old Testament, we see that the skills in craftsmanship needed for

making artefacts for the Tabernacle is the first occasion of someone being filled with the Spirit

mentioned in the Bible (Exodus 31:1-6). Here God filled Bezalel son of Uri with the Spirit, not to

preach a great sermon, nor to perform some miraculous sign. He was filled with the Spirit for the

purpose of making some nicely crafted pieces of wood and precious metal. Its hardly what we would

tend to imagine the Spirit would be up to, but isn’t it true that all that we are is a gift from God? Are

not all our talents and abilities – gifts, for the purpose of building up the church and bringing glory to

God? Could it be that we are defining Spiritual gifts a little too narrowly? And then being selective

even with these? I take “spiritual gift” to mean “coming as a gift from God, for the purpose of serving

God and his kingdom.” This could include all kinds of things, even being a rock singer!

______

11. 1 Thessalonians 5:12

Now we ask you brothers, to respect those who work hard among you, who are over you in the Lord

and who admonish you. Hold them in the highest regard in love because of their work.

______

12. The meaning of “who are over you in the Lord” in the Greek refers to watching over, watching out for,

as a shepherd does with his flock. I believe this verse is referring to “overseers”, also known as elders -

those to whom the church is entrusted. I am sure that there were a number of overseers in a given

church (since it is plural here – “those” rather than “the one”), and perhaps they might have divided the

job into areas of responsibility – maybe North, South, East and West for example. We don’t really

know exactly how it was done logistically, but these people would have been experienced people, with

a sound reputation; both in the congregation as well as with outsiders, in accordance with Paul’s

guidelines in Titus 1:7-9 and 1 Timothy 3:1-7. Almost without exception, they would be tested, older

Christians; married with model families, and worthy of total respect. We have absolutely no reason to

believe that this refers to a one on one discipling relationship, and many reasons to believe it doesn’t.

A discipling system would undermine Paul’s intentions because it would put the church effectively in the hands of inexperienced, untested leadership, which he specifically taught against. This is because,

as mentioned earlier, discipling requires that almost everyone be a teacher (that’s the whole point of it

– to teach and train). Otherwise you have a situation where one experienced person is personally

discipling five to ten people or more, which we know from experience doesn’t work – not with the

expectations we have put onto the relationship. Full time ministry staff can barely handle such a load,

let alone full-time working church members. In our present system, because the older Christians who

do qualify biblically are often not perceived as the kind of leader we are looking for, they are excluded.

Often they also exclude themselves from official leadership, perhaps partly because they don’t want to

be part of a system which is faulty in its conception, and also because of hurt and mistrust as

mentioned before. So they are left to pick up some pieces in the lives of other hurt disciples after things

have blown up, but have no position of influence to really prevent it all happening again.

13. This all begs the question of what we are looking for in a leadership position, and why? I think that by

now we can easily acknowledge that rapid, unsustainable growth is not such a great thing in many

ways, but slow, solid, sustainable growth is. Perhaps this should bring about a re-evaluation of what

kind of leadership we need for our new era.

14. These three verses are the first that come to mind as the intellectual justification for a system of

mandatory discipling. None of them specifically make the case by themselves, and together they tend

to undermine the case that discipling is a specifically biblical practice. In contrast, a completely

different picture of church leadership emerges which is quite contrary to this.

B. Some positive outcomes from our discipling system

1. I would argue that discipling has been in some ways a useful device in the early years of the

movement, imperfect though it was, and despite not being specified in the Bible as such. But I would

also argue that it has been reducing in its usefulness as we have matured, and is now actually becoming

counterproductive, and will only become more so. God uses imperfect tools to achieve his purposes.

We only have to look at ourselves to know that. We didn’t know the dangers, we were not fully aware of the problems, so all we can say is that we did the best we could with what we knew. I believe God is

leading us somewhere else now. Having said that, to dismantle things too quickly could prove equally

catastrophic. Just as countries which threw off monarchies and embraced democracy too fast have

inherited more problems than solutions, the same could happen with us also.

2. In the early years of the movement, almost by definition, most Christians were young Christians. They

needed some direction and discipling provided this. Nonetheless, many people fell away in the early

years because discipling was practiced in a very unbiblical manner, as has been publicly acknowledged

by Kip McKean himself in his “Revolution through Restoration” paper. Then it contained the element

of one over one authority explicitly – the discipler was the person whose advice (which for all intents

and purposes meant permission) must be sought in all major decisions, and many minor ones too. His

instuctions must be obeyed unless the Bible explicitly contradicts him, meaning that in every

disputable matter or opinion area, the disciple was subject to the discipler. The disciple would be

considered proud, and would receive some form of retribution to disagree with the discipler’s

interpretation of a particular verse, so Biblical interpretation also fell under the auspices of the

discipler; and above him, the leadership structure of the church as a whole. Quite reminiscent of

Roman Catholicism really.

Nonetheless, discipling also worked well in some ways in the early years, particularly in producing a

movement of considerable unity and focus. There was also a genuine feeling of love and comradeship,

generated from our united stand against the world, and our united mission to save the lost. The

movement operated with the efficiency of an army, since everyone who didn’t leave was “on board”,

and so was heart and soul for the quest of winning as many as possible, and also helping the poor. As a

result we have a movement which is in almost every nation, and many great accomplishments have

been achieved. Perhaps the greatest of all is our cohesion and lack of splinter groups, and also the

incredible benevolence work that has been done across the globe. C. Historical background – Action and Reaction.

1. I think the early success of the movement despite the doctrinal problems can be partially attributed to

the fact that it was in some ways a necessary counterbalance to the complacency, unrighteousness and

disunity of the mainline church of Christ, from which it was born. This same pattern can be seen in

almost all movements. Perhaps a useful analogy could be that when one has been starved of protein,

the body may seek to over indulge in it when the opportunity arises. At first, the body may thrive and

grow on its new protein rich diet, since it has been so lacking, but if the imbalance persists over a

longer period, other health problems will arise.

2. In the Protestant reformation, incredible growth was seen in the early decades after departure from

Rome, greater even - and more sustained than that seen in our own movement so far. The body had an

extreme “grace” deficiency, having been starved for centuries, and fed nothing but human works. So

when grace was discovered, there was a great banquet of grace, and the menu probably lacked a

healthy balance of human responsibility. But this didn’t seem to matter initially, because people still

felt they had had enough human works teaching to last a lifetime. So they thrived and grew, and filled

Europe in almost no time. But down the track, the disease of “human responsibility deficiency” – i.e.,

complacency and indulgence, set in, and these churches are now generally in decline.

3. A body can only continue to grow in the long term if it has a balanced diet. In our own case, one

aspect of our background was that we were reacting against the complacency and indulgence of those

who only focus on grace. Since the religious setting in which the church was born was deeply infected

with the complacent religion believing in a God with no expectations, as a counterbalance we became

too focused on the works of man, and too little on God’s love, choosing and acceptance of us. It has

taken some time for the disease to really become apparent, but finally now it is staring us in the face. It

is the “Security deficiency disease” - characterised by lack of godly confidence and initiative, lack of

genuine love, and lack of motivation from within. 4. It is understandable and right that we made a stand against what was truly an endemic rot at the heart

of the American Mainline Churches of Christ. The situation was such that parents belonging to the

church would protect their children’s right to be in immoral relationships, despite them also claiming

to be members of the church. The concept of dating non-Christians was a non-issue in the church, and

immorality was rife and unchecked as a result. Evangelism was a non-issue also, with most members

not really concerned about the situation of the lost. It is not hard to see why our system of human

accountability was a useful and even necessary tradition at the time, to combat the particular suite of

problems which the church faced in those days.

5. The history of the mainline church of Christ is also a very sorry tale of endless fracturing over piffling

opinion issues. To read the history of the Australian Mainline Churches of Christ, for example, almost

brings one to tears. It is littered with bitter division and total alienation over such issues as how many

cups to use in the Lord’s Supper, whether musical instruments are allowable in services, and whether it

is OK to pave the parking lots of church buildings. This inevitably led to a reactionary emphasis on

unity (or our particular definition of it) in our movement. This has also led to a legislated over-

conformity in our own churches up to this point in time, although this is now clearly on the decline.

6. So in summary of all this, endemic unchecked unrighteousness led to reactionary over-accountability;

disunity and factions led to over-conformity, and indulgent focus on grace and acceptance led to

reactionary over-emphasis on the works of man.

7. I know that we have taught a lot against legalism, and have not been unaware of many deep truths

about God’s grace. However, as I will discuss later on, structural implied teaching and personal

example is more powerful even than explicit teaching, and results in a disease of the heart despite

much correct teaching from the pulpit. Discipling, as the primary original distinguishing mark of our

movement, was unfortunately also the primary vehicle through which the works mentality and the

conformity mentality and the accountability mentality were propagated through the whole church

structure. These mentalities resulted in doctrinal imbalances, despite everything else we said from the pulpit; and so now discipling has a fatal stigma for those who have awoken to the problems of these

imbalances. Substantially because of these imbalances in our diet, we are now grinding to a halt in

terms of our growth.

D. Legalism and freedom in disputable matters.

1. In the New Testament, one of the most pressing issues discussed is the issue of legalism. In relation to

this, the focal point for our brothers living in the first few decades of the church’s history was the

question of circumcision. Was it mandatory or optional? As mentioned before, it was OK if done for

the right reasons.

2. So what was the problem with circumcision? It only became a problem, and a massive one at that, as

soon as it was enforced as a prerequisite for salvation or godliness. As soon as it became mandatory, it

became legalism, and had at that point the power to exclude from the kingdom those who relied on it.

Paul makes this point categorically in Galatians 5:2-4. If they let themselves be circumcised, Christ

will be of no value to them at all. They will have fallen away from grace. Why was this? It was

because in this condition they were now relying on human regulations rather than on faith in Christ.

Did those who enforced it believe in Christ as messiah? Yes, they did, but that wasn’t the issue. They

were relying on the law, instead of on faith in Christ, and so were legalistic. But was it intrinsically

because they were relying on an Old Testament law that this was the case? Would it have also been the

case if they were relying on some other human tradition, which was not found in the Old Testament? I

believe so. The principle is all about reliance on faith in Christ and his promises, rather than on

anything else – including the Old Testament Law, but not limited only to this. If we rely on a human

tradition, we are not relying on God, but on ourselves. If we rely on God’s promises, encompassing

faith, repentance, baptism and continued reliance on God’s love, we have his promise of heaven and

his power to change within us. 3. But what would happen if we were to add another requirement to all of this, which is not specified by

God? What would happen if we were to put this in our doctrinal statement as something essential for

salvation? What if we were to use this as a basis for excluding from our fellowship those churches

which don’t practice it, even though they believe and practice all the biblical requirements? What if we

were to drive away many good-hearted people because we would not give them freedom to disagree on

this issue? Could we be accused of the same heresy as the first century circumcision group? I believe

we can indeed be justly accused of this same heresy, terrifying though this conclusion may be.

4. Paul is incredibly clear in Romans 14 about how we are to respond to disputable matters; matters

which are not clearly defined in scripture, and which are not core salvation issues. We are not to judge

people over such issues, but are to allow them freedom to do as their conscience dictates. We are to be

aware of how our actions may be responsible for hurting the consciences of others, and at all costs,

never impose our will in such areas. But in the case of our church, we still have a point about the

necessity of discipling relationships in the doctrinal statement of our website! (December 2002). This

must mean that we are still teaching new disciples that they must be in a one-on-one discipling

relationship to be saved. If we doubt this, let us ask ourselves what our reaction would be to someone

studying the Bible who met all biblical requirements for baptism, but felt uncomfortable being

discipled, perhaps because of an abusive situation in a previous church. Would we baptise such a

person or not? Would it be an issue? My fear is that for most leaders, it still would be an issue. I know

that the issue is starting to fray around the edges in some churches, since older Christians have often

simply refused to be discipled, and have been grudgingly allowed to do this, albeit with a degree of

shame attached. The point still remains that it is essentially mandatory in our churches, and those who

spoke the truth on this issue and were forced to leave have not received their vindication or apology.

5. This brings up the question - what should a godly man’s reaction be to the mandatory nature of the

discipling system in the church? Should he be patient and compliant, hoping that maybe one day the

leadership will see the light? Or should he stand up and say something forcefully and publicly, risking

an adverse reaction? It is a difficult question in some ways, because the threat has been very real, and the fear of reprisals utterly tangible. The number of people who have been excluded and shamed for

doing just this is huge. But in other ways, it is a very easy question, since scripture itself provides a

clear model in the lives of John the Baptist, Jesus, the apostle Paul, and the rest of the apostles too; not

to mention the Old Testament prophets. They were prepared to stand alone against the religious

hypocrisy of their respected religious leaders.

6. Let’s look at one pertinent example – Paul’s public confrontation of Peter, mentioned in Galatians

2:11-13. Here we see that Paul was not senior to Peter in terms of leadership; Peter was one of the

main pillars of the Jerusalem church, and historically had been the key pillar of the whole early church.

Here also we see that Peter was giving implicit assent to legalism, by going along with those who

imposed additional requirements such as circumcision on Gentile Christians. We see the power of fear

in the fact that the whole lot of them followed suit including Barnabas, and that, had Paul not stepped

in, the whole early church could have been utterly derailed into heresy at this very moment.

Thankfully, Paul had the guts to go directly against the flow of the whole group by publicly addressing

Peter’s obvious hypocrisy. There is no doubt that Paul risked being excluded from the church at this

point, had things not gone his way. It would have been so easy to shut him down, to discredit his

apostleship, to play the “positional authority card”, or the “unity card”. Actually, everyone was unified

at this point except Paul, so their argument could have had an apparent weight, but they were unified in

error, and not unified with the Bible. But isn’t that also true of us on this issue?

E. The effect of discipling on the possibility of unity with other non-denominational Churches of

Christ.

1. One result of our belief in discipling as a mandatory practice, that I have had some personal exposure

to in the Capital Church of Christ, has been my involvement with the Canberra Church of Christ – a

non-denominational Church of Christ, ably led by a man named Steve Randall. (Who is known and

respected by Mike Fontenot, Graham Ogle and many others). A few years ago, when mandatory

discipling was in full swing in the Capital Church of Christ, although there was some level of interchange between us, there was an overriding barrier separating us. This was essentially the

discipling system which we practised. We mistrusted their salvation because they didn’t disciple

people the same way that we did, and so we felt we would need to study the Bible again with the lot of

them, before any meaningful unity could be achieved between us. They welcomed us hospitably, but

also felt a barrier because they didn’t want some legalistic system imposed on them from on high.

They also would have been utterly shocked by our blatant hypocrisy had they known our reservations

about their salvation. Our rationale, of-course, for why they should disciple the way we did, was the

brief burst of growth our church had experienced in the previous year, in comparison with their more

modest growth. Nonetheless, we couldn’t really fault them in terms of commitment or obedience to

any explicit command of the Bible. They are evangelistic (in a relatable, hospitable way that we are

moving more towards ourselves), loving, serious about sin, deep in the Bible, and they have been

baptised for remission of sins. They have deep interpersonal relationships, and a commitment to

address sin frankly in each other’s lives when they see it. The only problem at that time for us was our

lame and out of context exposition of Matthew 28:18-20 – that they should teach people “to obey”, ie

make sure they did things like street evangelism by holding them accountable in some organised,

systematic way. In other words, we felt they were wrong on the issue of discipling.

2. The fullness of time has not been kind to our assumptions and expositions. They seem to have grown

quite well over the last two or three years. When we originally were in contact with them, they were

about forty or fifty people, now it seems they are about sixty or seventy. They have a seemingly

negligible problem with people falling away, have a huge healthy attendance at their three or four

church events per week, and a demonstrably warm and mature fellowship. On attending full time, I’m

sure I would find problems there too; but their teaching is sound, deep and nourishing, and they seem

to have comparatively little problem with people being willing to take initiative and be involved.

Meanwhile, our church has shrunk from nearly sixty to twenty, has a large problem with people falling

away, has a major problem with attendance at our two short services, and has a large problem with

people wanting to take initiative and be involved. I believe our teaching is quite good here, and things are turning around slowly in some ways, but we are dealing with some deep sicknesses of heart that

will not change very quickly.

3. A problem we are all experiencing is the fact that we have had several generations of disciples who

were raised in humidicribs. They are still in many ways emotional babies, crying for the mother’s milk

of a predetermined agenda, quite unable to feed themselves. We have also a great shortage of nurses,

partially because they are fed up with having to look after so many babies. They are also sick of feeling

shame and blame for the fact that these overly needy babies keep on not getting fed, and therefore keep

on dying. Should any other church in Australia or the Western world say that their situation is

qualitatively different, I would be surprised to see evidence for this. It seems to be to be a general

condition of all of the first world churches, which seem to be steadily unraveling in many and various

ways; and I can only assume that the third world churches could follow suit soon enough, without

structural change now.

4. Can we turn around and have any logical basis for judging the Canberra Church of Christ as being in

any way inferior to us?. Can we say that they all need to study the Bible again and allow themselves to

be discipled, because it is obviously such a great, effective and biblical system? I could not in good

conscience be a part of such utter hypocrisy – of lying in God’s name. And I don’t believe for a second

that the Canberra Church of Christ is a totally freak occurrence, a totally special case without

precedent or comparison. There are maybe five or six churches in Sydney alone which the Canberra

Church of Christ recognizes also, and others scattered here and there throughout the rest of Australia.

5. So if these are our brothers and sisters; and I cannot possibly be convinced otherwise if they are

anything like those of the Canberra Church of Christ; then what are we doing if we are allowing a

human tradition to split up the body of Christ? Is this not a desperate sin, over which we should be

repenting in sackcloth and ashes? Will God not judge us for such things? Were we to apply the same

standard of discipling and commitment to our own fellowship that we apply to these churches, how

many in our ministries would be left standing? Is God not humbling us with the intent of bringing together all of his children, under the roof of one unified church? Will we stop this process by clinging

to our divisive and destructive tradition?

6. We have largely dismantled the discipling structure here in the Capital Church of Christ, but have

found that we still have plenty of deep spiritual relationships which meet our needs. We go to lots of

different people for help and advice, and confess our sins as we fell the need to do so, to those whom

we trust. Not everyone is necessarily at this point, but such people as there are who are not so involved,

have generally responded very badly to discipling anyway, so they are certainly not any worse off.

They are healing quietly in their own way, and will no doubt come on board at some point.

7. I believe, partially as a result of this development in the Capital Church of Christ, or at least because of

a lack of dogmatism on the issue of discipling, we now enjoy a great relationship with the Canberra

Church of Christ, which is growing and deepening weekly. Steve Randall is probably one of our most

committed and enthusiastic Wednesday night attendees now, and is universally admired and respected

for his wisdom, love and Biblical knowledge. Several other members of his church have been quite

regular in attendance also, and several of us have also attended his Thursday midweek service, and

enjoyed it very much. We are also becoming friendly at a social level, with informal dinner invitations

occurring here and there. Without the discipling issue in the way, we can see a pathway for unity and

interchange which is very healthy and encouraging indeed.

8. There is not time to go into the innumerable other possibilities for unity and interchange which might

open up, nor the possibility of a huge flood of people who have fallen away coming back once they see

some indisputable evidence of major structural change. Nor will I spend too long mentioning the

release of joy that might occur within our own movement as we come to see with even greater clarity

that God truly is working among us, producing revolutionary changes, and unifying his greater body

before our eyes. Nor will I go into the encouragement that might burst forth as we come to see

undeniable evidence that we truly are a church which responds to the truth of the Bible, and ruthlessly

renounces unbiblical tradition. I do not have time to go into the great vacuum of material that our critics would then find at their disposal. Nor shall I mention the positive flow on impact of the people

who may otherwise have listened to these detractors and left us, to ultimately fight against us. The

compound benefits of leaving discipling as we know it behind far outweigh any possible risks (which I

will discuss later also). The risks of keeping it far outweigh any possible benefits. This must mean that

keeping it as it stands is an act of biblical folly.

F. The Implicit teaching of discipling.

1. Now I want to pick up on the earlier mentioned delineation of implicit teaching versus explicit

teaching. The aforementioned extreme understanding of discipling – as being authoritative in opinion

areas and biblical interpretation – is now explicitly rejected, but I believe implicitly much of it remains

for four reasons. 1) Through habit and conditioning. 2) The implicit nature of a one on one relationship

which is still not entirely equal, since one person is “discipling” the other. 3) Because it is assigned by

leadership rather than chosen. 4) Because it generates an implicit understanding of respect which is

based upon position rather than life and relationship.

2. One aspect of the problem with discipling is the problem of maturity. As mentioned earlier, when the

movement was young, by and large Christians were also young in the faith. Now we are older, so we

no longer feel it is appropriate to be told what we can and can’t do; we no longer are willing to be

slaves to imposed conformity, because we are mature. It is a sad sight to see a grown man bossed

around by his over-dominant mother. Whether what she is saying is right or wrong, and whether he

would be arrogant to reject her advice or not, he must make a stand and tell her to back off, or he will

never become a man in his own right. The more pressure and expectation she puts on him, the more he

needs to leave the situation. This is the point that the movement - and more specifically, the Sydney

Church - is at right now.

3. We are all aware of the potency of implicit teaching. If your mother keeps on fussing over you, making

decisions for you and generally making you feel that you can’t get by without her when you when you are thirty-five, what is the implicit message? That you have not grown up, that you are still dependent.

She will never say that to you in words, but her actions proclaim it from the rooftops. Because it is not

stated, it is harder to recognize, and easier to just accept it, take it on board, and live accordingly. Also,

because it is given in the context of apparent care and generosity which is, no doubt, genuinely felt by

the parent, it is all the harder to refuse. But such implicit teaching must be refused if the person is ever

to mature.

4. Discipling fulfils a similar role. It builds fences around people to try to prevent them from sinning, and

to make sure that they make all the best choices in life. But what it really does is send the implied

message that they can’t take responsibility for their own decisions, nor can they take responsibility to

overcome sin themselves with God’s help. They also need this special relationship to help them. This

is so very damaging to the person’s spirituality that it actually gives them a psychological sickness call

co-dependency, leaving them in a child like state, short-circuiting their ability to evaluate information

objectively, or make personal decisions. We certainly never intended to do this. That is not in question.

The very fact that we are engaging in these discussions is proof enough of that, along with the many

changes that have already taken place. But we have institutionalized and crystallized an unbiblical

tradition, and have reaped the result - a psychologically sick, and emotionally dependent church. When

a thirty-five year old comes to terms with the fact that his mother is doing him more harm than good by

her “care”, he may tend to be a little over-sensitive to the issue for a while. In the same way, older

Christians particularly are likely to be quite over-sensitive about control, authority or manipulation

right now. This will balance out in time. All wounds take time to heal, but they do tend to heal more

quickly if not aggravated for a while.

5. Obviously, an unscriptural oppressive understanding and practice of authority is like deadly venom in

our veins, and is continuing to sap our strength as long as it remains. To our credit, let us say that we

have started to teach against many unbiblical things, in many and various ways in recent years. For

example, we have emphasized that if, as a discipler, we don’t have the respect of our disciple, we

should forget trying to give them advice – it won’t work. We need to build a relationship, and build trust first. We have explicitly taught that we are free to bring things up with our discipler too, and this

does indeed happen in most, if not all discipling relationships. We have endeavoured to not assign

people to discipling relationships which they won’t feel comfortable with. In some churches we have

even experimented with the disciple having a measure of choice about who should disciple him or her.

6. Despite all of this, I believe we are tinkering with a system which is faulty, not in its details of

application, but in its fundamental conception. It reminds me of how the Catholic church invented the

false doctrine of “confirmation” because of problems with their initial false doctrine of “infant

baptism”, rather than changing the initial false doctrine itself. They tinkered with their man made

system, rather than starting again by building the original design of God. This is always an endeavor

which takes incredible courage, and it remains to be seen as to whether we possess such courage. The

vast majority of movements, full of devoted, Bible based people though they have undoubtedly been,

historically have not. I would like to think that we will break this trend, and I pray that we will.

7. As a final note on the implicit teaching of discipleship, I believe that discipleship teaches implicitly a

message about the nature of relationships. Again, it is a far from intentional lesson, but it is there

nonetheless. The lesson is that friendships can be assigned (and dis-assigned), rather than just chosen

freely. The problem I see in many relationships in the church is the ability people seem to have to cut

old friendships and move on to new ones when they get a new ministry. I don’t blame them, and I have

indeed been the chief of sinners in this area. It is really hard to find the time to keep up old friendships

when you have been geographically separated, particularly when you have to quickly get to the point

of deep emotional trust and commitment with your new ministry. In one sense I feel I am being unfair

in this point, because I know that, to a degree, this happens everywhere – with old school friends, and

various friendships that occur in work places and so on. But in another sense I feel it is a good point,

because you don’t generally get to the point of depth and intimacy with such worldly relationships, and

if you did, you would no-doubt keep in touch, and feel bad if you didn’t. Because discipling provides

in some ways an artificially accelerated, and artificially deepened relationship, there is a greater sense

of betrayal and hurt when one sees such relationships constantly fading, vanishing before your eyes. It is a really powerful motivation to want to give up on the whole thing, once you get in touch with

how you really feel about it.

In some ways we have unwittingly set some new standards for what friendship entails, which in my

opinion are lower standards than those generally accepted in the world. If you move region and your

old discipler – with whom you shared everything, never rings you, even if you have rung him

sometimes, that’s OK because you can catch up with him and pick things up from where you left off if

you do ever see him again. It’s a new equilibrium point of friendship which needs to be examined

objectively. Is this the kind of “love for one-another” which will convict and inspire the world, and

show them that we follow Christ, or are we more convicted by the standard they set? I have

unfortunately all to often heard the assertion of people who leave, that they have better, truer friends in

the world. Would it not be more inspiring to generally see friendships which were genuine, which last

despite barriers of country, time, marital status, ministry and even membership in the church? I know

that such relationships do exist in the church, because they have really stuck in my mind as so

inspirational and different from both my own life, and the lives of so many others around me. They

struck me as being very different from the general situation. The general situation, however, is what

we are talking about. If relationships were not artificially assigned, I believe they would not be so

easily artificially broken and moved on from.

G. Unity versus uniformity

1. 1 Corinthians 11:1

Follow my example as I follow the example of Christ.

2. This, unfortunately, is a verse which brings me great embarrassment, because it is a clear example of

how we have at times flagrantly taken scripture out of its proper context, and applied it at will to

bolster our predetermined agenda. 3. This verse, in context, is relating to the whole issue firstly of idolatry and eating food sacrificed to

idols, and secondly - of the believer’s freedom and conscience. In Chapter 8, Paul is discussing food

sacrificed to Idols, and the fact that the Corinthians were getting a bit puffed up in their knowledge that

it was OK to eat such food because Idols aren’t real. The one thing they forgot about was the way they

affected other people’s conscience in doing so, people with less “knowledge” than them. In Chapter 9,

Paul shows how he doesn’t do this himself, but becomes “all things to all men”, to save them. In

Chapter 10 Paul warns the people about Idolatry, and shows that there actually is a demonic

association in this. But Paul also later makes the observation “For why should my freedom be judged

by another man’s conscience…” so he addresses the other side of the fence too – those who judge

people who eat such food with a clean conscience, praising God. The whole point – on both sides, was

about not causing people to stumble, and thinking about other people rather than just oneself. It was in

this context that Paul said “Follow my example, as I follow the example of Christ.” We cannot use this

verse to create a basis for the doctrine of imitation of one’s discipler. It has absolutely nothing to do

with this. Imitation in the New Testament, with regard to men, is always imitation of faith (Hebrews

13) or general attitudes such as tolerance, unselfishness, thoughtfulness and love. It applies to any

godly example, not a specific one called one’s “discipler.” Never is it mimicing of external actions,

dress sense, or personality. This kind of imitation, I have come to see, is extremely damaging to one’s

own personality, and dangerous to the church as a whole. What it does is subvert one’s own internal

convictions, talents, and personality; and replace them with ones that don’t fit – and that never will fit.

The result is imbalance, shallowness in relationships and lack of godly confidence. It is to the church

what imported monoculture plantations are to forestry and ecology. It looks artificial, doesn’t inspire,

has diminishing returns, and causes long term damage to the soil – the heart of the church. It also takes

massive time and effort - digging, resoiling and replanting - to reverse: the very process we are

undertaking at the moment. The teaching of the Bible is rather, to value the differences between

ourselves and others, and regard them as different gifts, different roles, uniquely given to us for the

benefit of the church. The process of combining our gifts with other people’s is a potential source of

conflict, but an even greater potential source of unity as we use our perspectives and gifts to knock off

the sharp edges in other people, and them with us, to the glory of God. 4. From this point of view, we can see that all the different personality types are required in the church.

For example, we can see that some people are quiet types, but perhaps at the same time very sensitive

and aware of genuineness in relationships. Other people are inspirational in a group setting, and find it

easier to interact confidently with other people, but can also tend to roll over other people if

unchecked, and can be quite unaware that they are doing so. Some people are more aware of injustice

and the feelings of others, and can step in to set things right. Some people respond to intellectual

things, and like a good debate about doctrine. Others don’t care too much about “splitting hairs” of

doctrine, and have an ability to keep things simple and real. Some people relate more to the notion of

group success, goals and achievement. Others relate more to the notion of family, friendship and

openness in relationships. All of these perspectives can be seen as potential reasons to split from and

and mistrust one another, or they can be seen as roles, with needs. Each type mentioned is a role

required in a balanced church, but each has its inherent need which makes it dependent on other

people’s complementary gifts and roles. So, with this attitude, we can be confident about our role, but

also humble about our need.

5. In Ephesians 4:16 it says: “Instead, speaking the truth in love, we will in all things grow up into him

who is the head. From him, the whole body, joined together with every supporting ligament, grows and

builds itself up in love, as each part does its work.” It is true, that in an earlier, related section, Paul has

mentioned only the major roles of apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers. However, he

then refers “speaking the truth in love” to the church as a whole. And therefore, each part doing its

work seems to be inclusive of the whole church, not only the roles mentioned above. Their role is to

prepare us for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up, until we reach unity in

Christ. But we all have the role of “speaking the truth in love”. So how does this relate to what we

have been saying? We all have our particular perspective, and our role is to speak the truth in love

from our perspective. We can’t do anything else really. In the process, we will inevitably modify our

view slightly as we interact with another perspective, but they will also modify their view as a result of

understanding ours. Since our perspectives are all complementary in some way, in the exchange, both of us move towards the middle, the complete understanding, and perfect balance of Christ. If we take

the understanding that we have something to give, and something to take from pretty much every

interaction (unless the other’s view is totally unbiblical), then it helps us to listen for the lesson, but

also be confident about our own perspective in a healthy sense. Wise leaders will realise that God uses

people who are not leaders to teach them at times. They need to be able to listen equally as well as

being able to teach.

6. The picture of the church being “held together by every supporting ligament” paints a picture of the

church being able to hold things in tension without letting go of each-other. Ligaments are designed

specifically to take enormous strain without letting go. The typical situation is for example the human

bicep muscle. It has a ligament on the forearm bone, and one on the upper arm bone near the shoulder.

When doing some lifting work, the muscle contracts, and all the load is transferred to the ligaments,

which have to hold on and not let go so that the bones will move relative to one another, each ligament

moving towards the middle, and the job will get done. This is how our relationships are to be. The

ligaments undergo great strain, but do great work. Strain is part of the design of the church, we are

meant to have disagreements and different perspectives (1 Cor 11:19), but we are also meant to hold on

to each-other, each moving towards the middle, and not let go. In the exchange, the strain produces

some growth in the muscle, and likewise in the church.

7. It is in this sense that I believe that unity has been confused with uniformity. I have some concerns

about the way that people with excellent Biblical points to make, and long experience, are shut down

because they express a different concept of the way the church should be run. We have a culture of

uniformity in the church – an imported monoculture which extends from evangelist down to young

Christian, which is very resistant to change, and very ready to cut people off and let them go if they

have a different perspective. This situation doesn’t just apply the leaders, it infiltrates everyone, and

has become a church mentality. No wonder the church isn’t functioning and growing as it should be.

This attitude persists despite all of our protestations claiming “if you can show us something in the

Bible that is wrong with what we are doing, we will repent straight away.” We say this to every prospective Christian, but do we do it? The Bible says in James 5:12, let your “yes” be yes and your

“no”, no, or you will be condemned. On this issue, our Yes has been, and in many congregations

continues unstintingly to be, a resounding No; with the threat of being asked to leave, and much

slander and one sided rhetoric to enforce it. Granted, we need to do things in an orderly fashion, but

when clear Biblical evidence is presented that we are in the wrong, to shut it down is a sin. What’s

more, it is motivated by pride and people pleasing and fear – not wanting to look weak and indecisive

in the eyes of superiors who are equally capable of shutting down those who disagree. I know, because

I have done all of this myself. To give an example, I have personally experienced (in earlier days) the

scenario of …

8. “Well I guess – if I were to be gut level honest, biblically he seems to have a point – on the surface at

least - but I’m sure he’s wrong ultimately – in full context, because that’s not what we believe as a

movement. And I’m sure everyone up there has it all in control. We must be right, because we are

God’s movement. I know what will happen if I mention the issue to my discipler - he will give me the

party line, and I will look silly, as if I didn’t know what to tell him. If I push the issue, I will get in all

sorts of trouble, and probably be taken out of leadership in shame. So I’ll just focus on the need to be

unified, quote a few scriptures about “agreeing with each-other”, suggest a fairly oblique, well worn

explanation for why we do it in our particular way, and hope the issue goes away.”

9. On the issue of “agreeing with each-other” (Phil 4:2), by the way, I don’t think Paul’s admonition was

that the two parties “agree to disagree”, unless it was a trivial matter that separated them. Nor do I

think he was expecting the less senior one of the two to repress what she really thought and tow the

party line of the other lady, since that is not really agreement so much as capitulation. Rather, I believe

he would have hoped that they would both patiently and gracefully work through the difficult process

of understanding each-other’s perspective, and come to the point of truly agreeing with each-other,

with the Bible as the basis of their unity. 10. That previous example of how I used to respond would be on a good day by the way. On a bad day I

wouldn’t even consider what was being said, or critically evaluate the issue from a biblical standpoint

at all, but just assume he was wrong, and tell the guy to be unified. This is cult-like behavior, I have to

say it: uniformity at all costs. How is this mentality generated and sustained? I’m sure all of us agree

that we don’t want to be unbiblical as a church, and all of us can see that this is not a great way for us

to move forward. I’m sure we can all admit that this culture is a preeminent reason for why people

leave. So what’s the cause? I believe it is our discipling structure, incorporating our pyramidal

leadership structure, which is largely responsible for promoting this uniformity. This is not to say that

every discipler does this, and that many examples can’t be found of those who truly listen and try to

respond biblically no matter what higher leadership may say. Nor am I saying that every discipling

relationship is a control/dependent based relationship. There is also no doubt that we have watered the

whole thing down immensely since the early days, when it was really quite extreme. I am talking in

general terms to a macro problem, which has structural origins, and I believe in many ways, a

structural solution.

11. I don’t deny that there are biblical reasons to disfellowship people, and that there is indeed another side

to all of this which needs to be addressed. The Bible is clear that when people are being divisive,

banding together on contentious issues and dragging people away into their faction, a clear stand has to

be made (Rom 16:17-19). These people are “letting go” themselves by doing this, cutting themselves

off, and cutting others off too. It is right to protect the church by warning people to not associate with

such as these.

12. But often, the whole situation would never have got to this point, if there wasn’t a blanket

unwillingness to listen on the part of the leadership, and conversely a great willingness to brand those

with legitimate points, expressed in legitimate ways, as divisive. It may never have occurred if there

wasn’t a lack of willingness to create forums for alternative views, where they can be evaluated

biblically and rationally. In other words, it wouldn’t be such a problem if we didn’t have a culture of

uniformity rather than unity. 13. It is pertinent to mention that the whole basis for our church splitting with the rest of the Churches of

Christ were considered to be Biblical issues (as we saw them at the time). We were in the minority;

they were previously considered to be our brothers, and we lobbied for support for our interpretation of

the Bible amongst the members of their congregations. We made the split in the leadership conference

of 1988 by saying “you are either with us or against us”, in a similar tone to George W Bush rhetoric.

Can we now turn around and condemn as divisive someone who brings up clear Biblical issues who

doesn’t want to split, and who works things out with the leaders rather than lobbying everyone else?

Would this not be hypocrisy? Even if he went to the congregation as a whole, either we would have to

admit that what we did in splitting from the Mainline churches was divisive (with all the implications

that this has), or that what such a person was doing was not divisive.

H. Responsibility for others or for ourselves?

1. We have been talking a lot about uniformity and unity. How does discipling promote uniformity?

Firstly it places pressure on people who are not experienced in Biblical terms, to be responsible for

someone. If you know the Bible well, you can answer questions simply with reference to a verse, and

allow the person to come to their own conclusions. If issues to do with balance and context come up,

you can provide the right scriptures to give the balanced view – both extremes, and how they work

together, and the proper context too. Because of this you can allow the person to be persuaded by

reason alone, and also allow them to take responsibility for their decision. If they decide to go their

own way, you have done all that you can reasonably do, and the responsibility is on their own head.

You can warn them, but you understand that life itself will teach them and discipline them. Their own

backsliding will rebuke them. After all that has happened, there is a very good chance they will

remember your words and come back stronger.

2. However, If you are inexperienced, you will tend to firstly take it as a personal failure if someone goes

their own way. This is because they are “your responsibility”. The fact that leadership constantly reinforces this view makes this even clearer in one’s mind. Because of this, if someone expresses a

non–conforming view, even if it is in some way biblical, it is taken as a threat that they will leave. In

this situation you will tend to react emotionally, and most of the time this also means unbiblically. It

feels like it is love that is behind it, but in reality there is also a huge amount of fear. Fear of what

leaders above you will think, what the rest of the ministry will think, and your peers - if the person

leaves. There is also shame and self blame. These emotions produce something of a “fight or flight”

panic, a desperation which tends to be read as very oppressive and controlling. Because you don’t have

a well-rounded understanding yet yourself, you have to make do with what you have got – a position.

A party line.You quote a few verses, often out of context, and with a sense of ramming the point home;

making sure the person “repents” before your very eyes. This is the only way to alleviate the shame

and fear. In any analysis of the psychology of humans, this behavior is understood to present a threat to

personal freedom, and to result in an even greater resolve for the person to leave the situation, and in

this case, permanently, more than likely. If they bring up what might, in other circumstances, be

conceded as a good point, there is no way you will consider it evenhandedly in this situation, because

emotional issues are at stake. To say on a critical issue “you made a good point there, we should look

at that” - would feel like deliberately losing them, letting them go – allowing them to fall to their death,

and you with blood on your hands. If the person is clearly not wanting to fall away, but merely to

disagree, then the fear and shame is more to do with allowing the church to become splintered and

fractured by different opinions, and the criticism you may expect from leadership for allowing this.

3. We are not “our brother’s keeper.” It is interesting how we have managed to take a very unwarranted

slant on this verse in Genesis 4:9. God never says that Cain was supposed to be his brother’s keeper,

nor does he imply this. He was simply not supposed to be his murderer! Cain’s comment was an

excuse for not wanting to say where Abel was, because he knew where he was – dead where he left

him! But that doesn’t make the comment wrong in it’s actual content, just wrong in its motivation.

Loving one another is quite a different thing to being each-other’s “keeper”. 4. Contrary to this view, it might be said that Hebrews 3:12-13 states that we should see to it that none of

us has a sinful unbelieving heart that turns away from the living God, but that we should encourage

one another. On looking at this verse closely, I have come to see that there is another interpretation

which fits very well, and that sits better with the Greek. The Greek does not justify our traditional

interpretation, that we need to be taking responsibility for each-other’s sin, making sure that it isn’t in

people’s hearts. It seems to be saying that each of us needs to make sure that we, as individuals, don’t

get a sinful unbelieving heart, and that we should encourage each-other, because encouragement

definitely helps us to not get such a heart.

5. We can’t “see to it” that someone doesn’t have a sinful unbelieving heart without taking the role of

prying detective, judge and enforcer. This is generally the last thing that people who are feeling down

really need. What they need is encouragement, grace, friendship, honesty and genuine, unconditional

love. If something comes up, you can ask questions about how they are feeling, point them towards

God, reassure them of his grace, and suggest how they could biblically respond to that, but it is not up

to you to change them. You can’t own their problems, their sin, or their repentance. It is between them

and God. You can encourage them, and hopefully inspire them by your example but that’s all. They

might change and they might not, it’s their choice. If their unrepentant heart is going to seriously affect

the church, steps might need to be taken to protect the church, as mentioned earlier. Its still not trying

to enforce a change on them, but merely to calmly respond to their decision in such a way as to prevent

more damage. Your responsibility is always to love, and it’s an unconditional love, independent of the

outcome, and not trying to control it. In your heart you continue to love them, and understand that what

you are doing is for their ultimate good. You can give reasons, verses, and arguments – but not decide

outcomes or “turn someone around”. If you have done what you can reasonably do, then you have

done your job well, and should feel no blame.

6. However, in our present situation, emotions are often high, responsibility and blame is usually felt,

calm reasoning is typically excluded, and love is often very conditional - if someone is non-

conforming in their views. I. Peer group reasoning ethic versus positional authority ethic.

1. The whole problem mentioned above is likely to be largely averted if we move to a peer group

leadership situation, in which all of the main leaders are experienced, well rounded, balanced people

who have a thorough understanding of scripture. In this elder’s group, a measure of friendly biblical

debate and reasoning is encouraged, since they are all on the same level so to speak. If one person

emerges as being in some sense preeminent, it will be on the basis of their wisdom and understanding,

- their reasoning, not their position. Because more experienced leaders are less concerned about what

men think, and more concerned about truth, they tend to be able to listen better. Because they know the

Bible better, they can offer more convincing arguments, and do so without emotion or control. Because

the leadership group has an overriding, forged unity, despite it’s heterogeneous structure, this provides

a model for the rest of the church to follow. This provides a genuine opportunity for true

interdependent unity to emerge in the church, rather than it’s poor and poisonous substitute –

uniformity. This kind of leadership group is much more likely to be receptive and open to new ideas,

and new perspectives, whilst not being naïve and hair triggered in renouncing old ways in favour of the

new either. They have seen all the ways we have changed our perspective so far, and can see that we

will probably keep on learning and changing into the future. But they have also seen the danger of

changing too fast, or to radically. In other words, they can tell the difference between a passing fad,

and a true and needed revolution.

2. For the rest of the church leadership, there should also be a group ethic in decision making, again with

reason, wisdom and biblical understanding being the valued commodity rather than simply delegated

authority. I believe it is a very healthy principle that “many advisers makes victory sure”. The more

perspectives we can get on an issue, the more information we have with which to make a decision.

Also, the more everyone will be behind the final decision, since they know that at least they have been

heard, and their perspective went into the pot with everyone else’s. Of course, this will also tend to

produce a lot of disagreement here and there. God desires that we all agree with each other, so unanimity is a highly sought after objective, but it is a genuine agreement – not a forced conformity.

This is where a very strong program of teaching to do with unity and submission to each-other is

required. Of course, to be a stick in the mud on every little issue is to have a contentious spirit, and to

have an unwillingness to consider others rather than just ourselves. We need to really go deep in this

area, and really build an incredibly solid base of understanding of these things, and how they relate to

God’s whole purpose for the church in bringing glory to Christ. At least, though, we can see that this

was exactly what Paul taught about so clearly, and that so much of the New Testament is devoted to

exactly this issue. So we would not be experiencing anything new in that sense.

3. We have started to arrive at an approximation of this position in many cases already, more through a

process of elimination rather than through Biblical conviction. Now it is common for leaders to have

open planning sessions with their ministries, and to allow the group to decide on many occasions. so

we have a lot of groundwork already in place. It would be better, I believe, if the leader were to be

recommended by the church because of his wisdom, balance and service, rather than simply be

appointed by other leaders. I believe that then we may have a situation which provides a positive bias

towards the ethic of servanthood of leaders, rather than the control of leaders. If the church could also

appoint someone else if the leader were to not serve well, that would put the onus on him to be very

Biblical in everything he says and does, and very serving in his attitude.

4. We have often heard it said : “the church is not a democracy”, the point being that it is a monarchy or

(said less empathetically) a dictatorship of some kind. However I want to challenge that assumption. In

the sense that Jesus is our King, and we all must submit to him unconditionally, of course the statement

is totally correct. But with regard to how Jesus kingship is manifested in human leadership, I think it is

not true at all.

5. In a democracy, diversity of opinion is encouraged and considered an asset. Parlimentary debate is its

strength. Accountability to the people is its foundation. Freedom is its core principle. Once the

decisions are made, the people are required to follow decisions made by the leader on behalf of the group. In other words, to be submissive to and unified with the group, via obeying its representatives –

the leader and parliament. However, everyone has their input into the decision-making process, their

vote; and everyone can have the opportunity to be elected leader in theory. Everyone can have access

to the issues being discussed, and can access their representative member of parliament to express their

views without fear of reprisals. The leader is not supreme, but is answerable to a parliament, and can

be questioned and even deposed and replaced by the parliament, and by the people. The leader emerges

from the parliament on his merits, he is not appointed by anyone else. He is elected on the basis of his

ability to serve the interests of the people.

6. In a dictatorship or monarchy, the leader does not necessarily represent the views of the people at all,

nor do his policies necessarily address their needs or concerns. In a true dictatorship or monarchy, he

cannot be deposed by anyone, and answers to virtually no-one, without a military coup taking place.

He acts out his own particular agenda, which may be good or bad, but is usually based on self-interest

and self-aggrandizement. There is no form of redress for the people if he doesn’t treat people well,

particularly if he has an efficient secret police, legal system and jail system to back him up. Such a

leader creates a culture of fear and reprisals for non-conformists, and so maintains control through

suppression of freedom. He creates a monoculture of conformists, and the country gradually tends to

reflect him in personality and outlook. Diversity of opinion is stamped out and considered a threat. The

control is maintained through a pyramidal command structure, with each person answerable to the one

above, all the way up to the leader. This pattern can be seen in many dictatorship regimes throughout

history and in our present time. If the leader is callous and hateful of Jews or immigrants for example,

the country will tend to follow suit in the atmosphere of fear, propaganda and control that he creates,

acting out a similar hatred on a personal level.

7. The way in which the first century church was a monarchy with respect to God, is seen in the fact that

for some important decisions, they gave God the casting vote – they cast lots. (Acts 1). The fact that it

was also a democracy with respect to men is seen by the fact that they had open debate on issues of

doctrine and practice between representatives of different sections of the Church. (Acts 15). Does this mean that we have to always do the same? Technically, no. But its there for a reason, and our system

isn’t there at all necessarily.

1. Leadership structure in the New Testament

2. So which system do we see in the New Testament overall? Single leaders calling all the shots, or

groups working things out as a team? Or do we see both? We definitely do see Paul laying down the

law in some sense, prescribing what sound doctrine is in his letters to the Gentile churches. But he did

this having received his message directly from Christ himself, something not many of us can claim

today!. We can also say that the teaching of the apostles was the foundation of the church. So there

was not going to be open debate allowed about basic, core doctrine – what they had seen and heard

from Jesus. The apostles were given solemn authority to teach the true message, and the people needed

to submit to this. It only makes sense to do this, because they were the ones who were there with Jesus.

They were hand picked for the job by Jesus himself, and Matthias by God through the casting of lots.

There is a sense in which this opening time of the church is a special case, because it was the period in

which the apostles were alive, and the New Testament was still being compiled. Now we have the New

Testament, it is the only memory of the teaching of the apostles and the direct revelation which Jesus

gave to Paul, and the other NT writers. So now, the authority of Scripture is for us what the authority

of the Apostles was for them. But none of this directly addresses the question of how the New

Testament church leadership structure really worked.

3. In Acts chapter one, we see that initially there is no mention of an official leader – the group simply

got together to pray and Peter is mentioned alongside all the other apostles. Admittedly, though, there

does seem to be some order in the list. Peter comes first, then James, John and the rest. Peter, before

Jesus ever confers upon him an official role of leadership, is the most quoted and vocal of the apostles,

and the first to understand what’s going on generally. He is the one who sticks his neck out while

everyone else is assessing the risks. In Acts 1 vs 15 Peter stands up among the believers, and seems to

be the natural leader. He proposes that someone takes the place of Judas in apostleship. Interestingly, though, the group proposes two men, and they are chosen by lot after much prayer. They were not

appointed by Peter himself, at least not in the sense in which we appoint people. But they were selected

according to strict biblical criteria, rather than merely popularity.

4. The argument that Paul sent Timothy or Titus around appointing elders, doesn’t actually negate the

possibility that they might have had these practices as part of the process. Matthias was added to the

twelve apostles, so he was appointed in that sense, but via communal prayer; with, no doubt, some

measure of group discussion, and the casting of lots. Peter instigated the process through his quite

decisive recommendation, so one can imagine a really simplified report of the event might be that

“Peter appointed another apostle to replace Judas.” But in a church which knew what that meant, the

details of how it was done would be superfluous. Later in Acts, we again see Peter emerging as a

dominant player – a leader, as he speaks to the crowd in Acts 2. But the eleven are also standing with

him, and it seems that he is their representative speaker rather than being in a position of authority over

them.

5. This is consistent with Acts 2:42, which confers upon all of the apostles the same authority, while not

denying that Peter was the most vocal of the twelve, and in some sense the natural representative and

so - leader of the group. Later on, it seems that Peter was not so exclusively the dominant voice, but

that James the brother of Jesus; and John (the brother of the other James, who was executed), also

became together pillars of roughly equal standing. (Galatians 2:9). Then Paul also became very

influential, such that his writings were accepted as scripture immediately, he was included as an

apostle, and had a major – even decisive influence on the Jew / Gentile debate.

6. With regard to how new leaders were chosen, back in Acts Ch 6 it is the whole twelve who gather all

the disciples together on the issue of looking after the Grecian Jews. Amazingly, the twelve then hand

over to the whole group the responsibility of choosing their leaders, which they ably do. The ones they

choose, at least in the case of Stephen and Philip, turn out to be tremendous men of God, who take the

church to new heights, and set a brilliant example of courage, faith and love. But this can be seen as a sort of quasi-democratic election, put in place by a kind of parliament of respected leaders – the

twelve. The limit of the analogy is that the selection was to be based on an essentially unanimous

group appraisal in terms of the fulfillment of the biblical criteria mentioned, not a 51% factional

majority. The twelve formally appoint these men by laying hands on them and praying for them.

7. We see a pattern for the structure of the leadership throughout the New Testament, through the use of

the plural with “elders” or “overseers”, or “deacons” in almost every instance in which the words are

used. These people are sometimes appointed by a single person such as Titus, who seems to fulfil the

role of a teacher / evangelist as far as I can tell (Titus 2:1-10). But we have no reason to assume that

they were appointed in a different way to that by which the seven were appointed by the twelve – via a

popular appraisal by the people.

8. This is a simple way to ensure that the qualifications of an elder are fulfilled. In short: someone who is

a blameless example of a Christian in the eyes of the group and the world. The whole group is likely to

have a much better perspective on this than Titus would, since he was only a visitor to all the towns of

Crete. Imagine what a perilous job it would be to make such decisions without having the opportunity

to spend years with each church, and get to know everyone intimately. One could only choose on first

impressions and outward appearances, which we all know can be very wrong. Imagine how easy it

would be to let the church choose, and how failsafe. How failsafe also to choose a group of such

leaders rather than just one, each with equal responsibility and ability to influence the decision making

process through Biblical reasoning. It is interesting that in the democratic world, in both civic and

corporate arenas, the pattern is almost exactly the same. CEOs, boards of directors, middle

management and shareholders. Prime ministers, parliaments, public servants and constituents.

Evangelists & teachers, elders, deacons and disciples. All of these structures seem to fit this basic

pattern. A church can still have a main spokesperson, an “executive” who emerges from the eldership

or leadership group, and is accountable to it, but he can be removed by the eldership also if he doesn’t

perform well. In Christian terms, this would be if he fails to look after and represent the sheep appropriately. Eldership seems to be associated primarily with overseeing and care for the flock –

watching over them like a shepherd.

9. So what is the Evangelist’s role, it might be asked, what does he do all week if the role of

administration can be done mostly by an administrator, and pastoring done mainly by an elder? What

we know he does for certain is preach the Word! (2 Tim 4:2).

10. I Timothy, 2 Timothy and Titus are all written to evangelists (although both seem to be also called to

do a lot of simple teaching to the congregation), so they give a good insight into the role of the

evangelist. I have to say that after reading theses these books in the light of this question, I have had to

modify my views about the role of the evangelist quite markedly. I had been toying with the idea that

he is simply an itinerant preacher, or a locally based preacher devoted mainly to a public preaching

ministry to the lost, somewhat like Paul himself. Although there are hints that this was perhaps a

decent part of the job description (2 Tim 1:8), it seems that the job had a lot more to do with teaching

against false doctrine in the church while affirming true doctrine (most of the three books). In many

ways he seems to take a lead role in the church as a front man, and he is entrusted with the

appointment of other church leadership positions, namely elders and deacons (although this may mean

simply rubber stamping the unanimous opinion of the church as suggested earlier.)

11. One way teachers and evangelists might work together is as follows. The teacher calmly, carefully and

methodically lays down the truth of what the Bible says, so that it convinces the mind fully about what

God’s way is. The evangelist then comes along and, using the foundation laid by the teacher, appeals

to the will and to the heart – to obey the word of God, to surrender fully to God’s way in our daily

lives. My hypothesis is that evangelists and teachers were often very similar positions, perhaps

interchangeable apart from a slight leaning towards either the ability to satisfy the mind’s questions, or

the ability to powerfully call the heart to respond. Together, they effectively form a CEO – like

position, whilst still being subject to hiring or firing by the elders. Elders and deacons seem to be a

little more distinct, since there are detailed lists regarding their qualifications. But the plot thickens

even further when you see that some who were elders, had roles in teaching and preaching too (1 Tim 5:17), so all kinds of permutations seem to be possible. Often one person may fulfil two or even three

roles at once. Perhaps the maxim “if it’s vague, its vague for a reason” should be employed, meaning

that we can use a system based upon the general guidelines and available information of these roles,

but without being too rigid about them where the Bible isn’t.

12. What we can glean from the Bible is that those in leadership were experienced and tested, not young

converts. They were chosen on character and life, not on external qualities. The church as a whole also

quite often seems to play a part in the selection of leaders, even though they may be officially chosen

by the main leader, be he an elder or an evangelist / teacher.

K. The need of the hour – respect for older Christians

1. The greatest tragedy of our time is the fact that we are losing older Christians. Huge sections of our

church have left recently, and even larger sections are on the verge of leaving, and way too many of

them are older Christians. A few years ago it was noticed that it was largely Christians aged around 2-4

years who were leaving. The effect was quite pronounced and obvious, and it begged the question…

why? My feeling is that these people were old enough to realise that they were being controlled, and

that certain things we were doing were unbiblical, and yet enforced as mandatory. On the other hand

they were young enough to not have the depth of friendships, the loyalty and the character to stick with

us while we got our act together, and made the changes we needed to make. They had not been around

long enough to see that there was hope, because we have indeed made some really big changes since

the very early days.

2. Now we are facing another phenomenon. Older Christians are becoming totally tired, exhausted and

fed up with waiting for certain things to change, and are losing faith that they ever really will. They

have stuck it out for years and years, but still they are too often ignored, shut down, and disrespected.

Still we have held onto structures and traditions of abuse such as one on one discipling, young and

inexperienced leadership, and an understanding of unity that excludes the freedom to disagree and engage in healthy biblical debate. Still too often we have ridden over people’s emotions rather than

listening to them and supporting them in love. These people have given the church many long years of

their life and they have stuck it out when countless others have left. But now they are finding it hard to

take when they bring things up and are shown the brick wall, or otherwise the door – particularly when

the people doing this are younger in Christ than they are. They also find it hard to take when they have

to listen to young, inexperienced leaders give shocking, shallow, immature sermons, which are focused

only on the works and responsibilities of man, virtually never on the character of God. It is same old,

same old, same old. It is not the fault of these young leaders; they are doing totally, one hundred

percent their best. Each of us, virtually by definition, would do the same thing in their situation. You

can’t make a two tear old sapling do the job of an aged Oak.

3. Biblically, the older Christians are the backbone of the Church. In James, we are told to “respect those

who are older.” They are the elders and overseers, the deacons, the leaders and the examples. To lose

our older Christians would be catastrophic, and could virtually signal the end of our movement – a

body blow to our collective faith from which we might never recover. The experience and wisdom and

character that God has built in them over the years is as irreplaceable and rich as the old growth

rainforests of the earth. They have lessons to teach which we desperately need, if we are not to

endlessly relearn the bitter lessons of the past. Because many of them have been hurt in the past, they

need to be treated with great patience. However, it must also be realised that the best way to get them

back into the breach, so to speak, is to make the changes they have been saying for so long that we

need to make. In doing so, we also must entrust them with the freedom and responsibility to help us to

make these changes.

L. The plan: healthy mentoring based on friendship and freedom.

1. Within the context of older Christians that we are discussing, it is appropriate to discuss the concept of

mentoring. In many ways, I believe we have seen discipling as a form of mentoring, and since

mentoring is widely regarded as a legitimate and helpful practice in all areas of life, we assumed it followed that discipling was equally legitimate and helpful. This indeed would probably have been the

case if our original assumption was correct – that discipling and mentoring are essentially the same

thing.

2. We see many examples of mentoring in the Bible. Elisha and Elijah, Paul and Timothy, Older

women’s relationship with younger women – that of teaching them to be great mothers and wives, and

so on.

3. But is discipling as we have practiced it the same as mentoring?

4. The oxford dictionary definition of Mentor is “Experienced and trusted advisor.” Also mentioned in

the definition is the fact that the root concept is all about “thinking”.

5. Mentors are generally those who are truly respected in their field, whose knowledge is thorough, and

whose experience is great. Mentors are generally chosen rather than assigned. They are employed

because of the benefits that the person wishes to obtain from them – knowledge, understanding and

skill. Just as a coach is employed, or a karate instructor, or a management consultant. This element of

choice creates a dynamic which is based on knowledge rather than on position or authority, on

evidence of understanding rather than on mindless submission. For this reason, if a coach doesn’t

know how to get the best out of the team, he gets fired. If it comes to light that a karate instructor

knows very little about the genuine art, he is replaced. If the management consultant is not up to speed

with the latest information, his opinion is not sought.

6. It is not the same with discipling though is it? It could be argued that sometimes when a disciple is

really unhappy with the situation, he may seek a leader above his discipler to replace the person, but

this is not always possible, and the ultimate decision is not the disciple’s, but someone else’s. This is

like the situation in which, let’s say, the government assigns you your karate instructor, and you can

only attempt to change the situation via a lengthly process of complex negotiations. Let’s say that the

government assigns you a yellow belt karate instructor who is still at the early stage of the learning curve, and you are only one stage below this person. Would you consider this person a mentor in the

true sense of the word? If you had to go to this person for all of your training, when you felt he may

know only marginally more than you, will you feel comfortable with this, or resentful after a while?

How would your feelings change towards the person if there was no imposed relationship; but rather a

friendship emerged naturally between you? Would it matter in such a case if the person was a little

lacking in technical knowledge and experience? The person would be simply a friend, and may be able

to help you immensely in the kinds of ways that a friend can help – spurring you on to keep trying,

practicing with you, reminding you of what the instructor said and so on. And you can do the same

with the friend also.

7. But is this person a mentor really? No – closer to a peer, a friend. If that person were to try to take a

more senior role with you, out of step with how you felt about the person and their level of experience,

you would probably start feeling resentful towards the person, and hold back in the friendship. We can

have senior friends in a way too – people who we respect as knowing more than us in some ways. The

more they know in comparison to us, and the more they are an inspiration to us, the more they can fill

the role of a mentor. It is not a black and white issue, but rather a sliding scale of experience and

respect, but the determining factor is how we feel about them, how inspired we are by them, how much

we feel we can learn from them.

8. Is this something that can be successfully imposed? Or is the act of imposing such a relationship a

betrayal of the very heart of what makes the relationship work in its free state? Does imposing the

relationship actually change the dynamic of mentoring into the dynamic of controlling? Does it

actually put a firm lid on the very heart of ones personal inquiry and quest to learn, and turn it into a

sense of pressure to conform?

9. Against this argument, one might say that the way discipling is taken and interpreted is up to the

individual. If you decide to get resentful of someone telling you what to do, that is your decision to get

proud, and to resent correction. The choice to be humble is open before you also, and you can decide to learn if you want to. It is indeed true that there are things we can learn from people who may not

qualify in our hearts as mentors, but we will naturally be mistrustful of things they say if we don’t feel

they are well informed, or balanced in their perspective. We would be stupid not to, and unbiblical as

well. Amidst some of our favourite verses about the need to seek advice in Proverbs, is a much less

quoted verse. In Proverbs 14:15, it says, “a simple man believes anything, but a prudent man gives

thought to his steps.” If a discipler takes such prudence as a threat or a problem, then it is certain to

cause conflicts in the relationship which are legitimate, and a direct result of one person being placed

“over” the other who shouldn’t be. Extreme problems will naturally occur if the young yellow belt is

placed “over” a black belt so to speak, and starts throwing his weight around. Not only is it dangerous

because he is likely to get hurt; it is immoral because it is an insult, the ultimate example of

humiliating disrespect. But is this what we do at times? Do we put the zealous, two year old region

leader and his wife over the seasoned ex-ministry couple, who have been around since almost the very

beginning? Do we then blame the ex-ministry couple and call them proud when things don’t work, and

because the young , zealous couple’s feelings get hurt?

10. Would it not be better to get away from our “protectionist”, “regulated” policy, and move towards a

“free trade” of ideas and experience? “Let the market decide what they want, and let them get it for

themselves”.

11. I can imagine the initial reaction to this comment from those who share my concerns about the impact

of globalisation, and the free trade agenda of the WTO. And it is worth looking at the dangers of this

proposal. What would happen to the weak? What would happen to those who are baby Christians,

brought up so far on the mother’s milk of discipling? Would this policy strengthen the strong and

weaken the weak? Would the rich get richer and the poor get poorer, so to speak? Would young

Christians prefer to continue on with discipling perhaps? Or something like it? I think that there is

some weight to this argument, since young Christians are in a vunerable state in many ways, and not

always able to feed themselves, or even know when they need help. We certainly know how devious

and ruthless our enemy is, given the slightest opportunity. We also know how easy it is for the best of us to fall out of good protective habits like reading the Bible, prayer, confession and evangelism, given

the right circumstances. I certainly am not in favor of a church with no structure at all, no leadership,

no way to keep an eye out for what the devil is up to with the flock, no sense of accountability. I don’t

believe anarchy is a legitimate church structure, nor do I approve of a system in which a church

referendum is held on each and every minor issue.

12. So what do I propose? First of all, I believe that the act of converting someone brings with it a

responsibility to look after that person, and give them the initial training and support that they need.

We need not call this discipling, but we can call it the responsibility attached to helping someone

become a Christian. It doesn’t need to be regulated or specified as to how long, how often or whatever.

This is all worked out in individual circumstances under the guiding principle of love. When the

disciple has enough strong relationships to sustain them without your help, then the importance of your

relationship with them is diminished; but hopefully they are by now your close friend, so it is not a

question of obligation but of friendship anyway.

13. I believe that group leaders do have a special responsibility to their particular flock, and their

responsibility is to serve the group, and to teach them the Word and love for one another. I believe that

those leading such groups should be experienced, dedicated, highly respected people; chosen by the

church as a whole to fulfil the role of deacons. Of course they should be willing to lead, not forced or

pressured into it. We should work out how many deacons we need, propose a longer list of people who

meet the criteria, and choose the appropriate number of people by some kind of secret ballot, or

perhaps drawing straws, after much communal prayer. If more are needed at a later date, have another

meeting, and more prayer to choose some more. I believe that a group of elders (which, as said earlier,

seems to be a word synonymous with “overseers”- Acts20:28, 1 Pet 5:2) should be over this group of

deacons, again chosen by the church in a similar way, from a list of those who meet the Biblical

criteria. They should essentially run the church, including formally appointing teachers, evangelists,

deacons and the like. Perhaps these elders should initially be officially appointed by a senior teacher,

who is already widely recognised and respected, such as Doug Jacoby; or otherwise by our current elders. We already do have deacons serving the church, a very positive move in my opinion. I am

proposing that we increase the number of deacons, essentially replacing the current role of “bible talk

leader”.

14. I am also proposing that we increase the number of elders quite substantially, without putting any

obstacles in the way of this, over and above the basic Biblical criteria. In other words, I believe that the

reason we would be choosing them is the fact that they have already been trained by long, faithful

service in the kingdom. They have already proved themselves by the very criteria that we use to choose

them – faithful and obedient families, good character and reputation, soundness in life, doctrine and

understanding over a long period. I believe at the moment, our numerous fences around the law are

keeping the shepherds out, and allowing the wolves in. Strike the shepherd (or lock him out) and the

sheep are scattered (and eaten one by one). Having no one who qualifies for eldership in a church of

five hundred people, and in a church that has been established for decades, is an anomaly. It is not that

no one qualifies biblically – many do. It is that we don’t recognize them biblically for our own

traditional reasons.

15. So in broad terms, I suggest (not dogmatically – since this is a discussion paper!) some ideas, as a

place to start, in terms of how many of the different leader types might be appropriate. I think that a

group of twelve guys and twelve girls is about as big as most couples would be able to watch out for

by themselves. I think it is also a big enough group to have an interesting mix of people with different

gifts, and is also big enough to create a decent atmosphere, without overwhelming the average large

lounge room. So in a church of say six hundred, we might need 50 deacons, or 25 deacon couples.

Overseeing these, would be perhaps six elders and their wives. In addition to this, there could be

maybe three teachers, and a roughly equal number of evangelists and administrators. The goal would

be for the elders, teachers, evangelists and administrators to be supported by the church financially so

that they could be free to devote all their time to their responsibility. The deacons would be working

normal jobs. This would equate to say 21 full time wages of roughly $40,000 average (some more, some less according to family size etc) if the average weekly contribution was $30 per head, which

also allows $96,000 left over for other things like facility hire, printing etc.

16. So what about young Christians? I believe that in the family atmosphere which would be created by

the deacons, in a home based fellowship group, there would be a good environment for nurturing

young Christians. I believe that in this environment, many great friendships would be made, and also

things like prayer partnerships could be encouraged. There will be a range of ages of disciples in the

group, and the older ones among these should be encouraged to informally take an interest in

encouraging and helping the younger wherever possible. I also believe that the deacon would take a

large share in the responsibility for teaching and encouraging the young Christians, inviting them over

regularly for meals and so on, and maybe doing a course of follow up studies with them. What about

the young to middle aged, zealous Christians in the group, biting at the bit for some responsibility? The

deacon’s and deacon’s wife’s role is sort of like Ma and Pa of the group, but they are not the only ones

who do anything. They can suggest or delegate different people to help them in various ways. I would

like to see a family group discussion format for the midweek service, which allows everyone to

contribute their opinions and ideas, done in an intimate family setting with tea, coffee and biscuits over

fellowship afterwards. I would suggest that the deacon and wife should generally be moderators and

facilitators of the discussions, gently nudging the group in the best direction without being

overbearing, and yet without allowing false doctrine or animosity to go unchecked. The group should

aim at developing a sense of where the talents lie in the group, and becoming submissive to these, and

respectful of them. All of the good things present in the best discipling relationships should be

encouraged for all relationships in the group.

17. As another line of defense, it could be encouraged to have smaller single sex groups get together –

optionally – to share and encourage one another on a purely peer basis, with each person taking it in

turns to organise the next meeting, and gather everyone together. I have tried this in Canberra, as have

other people also, and it has worked well – people got heaps out of it, only we have to work on ways to

make sure it keeps going, and that it doesn’t fall down due to someone not making the effort. A work in progress for further discussion and reflection. These groups could form a healthier replacement for

the “D group”. People with experience in 12 step groups and counseling could take initiative to share

the lessons they have learned, since all of us have addictions of one type or another. In these groups,

everyone is equal, and getting together is on a voluntary basis to confess sin, encourage one another

and deal with deeper heart and relationship issues. Hopefully there would be enough people in the

family groups with sufficient maturity to initiate such smaller groups, and sustain them.

18. So what about opportunities for larger gatherings of the church? I believe that this is where the

evangelists, teachers and administrators would come in. From time to time, maybe every three or four

weeks, the weekly home fellowship group would be replaced by a larger group meeting at a hired

venue. At these larger meetings, high quality classes could be taught by teachers, needs could be met

by evangelists and elders, administrative matters could be resolved by administrators and so on. It

would also provide a good opportunity for the whole church to see each other, or larger sections of it.

Perhaps each of say three regions would have two elder couples, a teacher, an evangelist and an

administrator in full time ministry. There would be then roughly eight deacon couples and about one

hundred and eighty disciples. The money that was saved on venue hire, by having most mid week

meetings in homes (or outdoor activities as decided), could be used to pay the staff outlined, and make

things exciting for the group. Events could include planned retreats, conferences, social events and so

on. It could also provide a small budget for more structural benevolence in our own community, as

separate from our contributions to third world countries. Other ideas could include structural

institutions for the church such as a small reference library, or a church owned property for retreats

and camps etc.

19. In the Canberra Church, we have found the group discussion format to be highly successful, and also

very adaptable to current needs. It has brought people out of themselves, has increased the sense of

unity, and has provided a great opportunity to involve and reach out to other people. It has also

enriched the group to see many different perspectives, and to engage in genuine intellectual and

emotional (in a good way) discussion. We have found it particularly good to study through a book of the Bible, bit by bit, over a month or two. We have found that this does not require an overly

burdensome amount of preparation for the one facilitating the meeting, only to read the section through

a few times and make some notes, or look up a little bit about the background perhaps. It takes a little

skill to know how to ask the right questions to get the discussion going, however that is something that

can be taught quite easily, and would be well within the reach of deacons anyway. The group teaches

itself largely, as everyone puts in their various insights and experiences. We would be having teaching

from the pulpit on Sunday from the evangelists primarily, but also elders and teachers, so there will be

lots of opportunity for structured teaching. Also the once per month larger group would provide an

opportunity to meet wider church needs.

20. In this arrangement, people can learn to have a full range of relationships. These include senior peer

relationships where they are the senior peer, to ones where they are the junior, to true mentor

relationships, to equal peer relationships, to nurturing of young Christians; while understanding all of

them to be friendships. In all of them they can be open, confess their struggles, question things, share

opinions, give advice where appropriate, have fun together and so on. But none of them is “official”

apart from the designated roles I have mentioned. None of them involves any kind of positional

authority, but there is a responsibility to persuade Biblically from the designated leaders, and to be

persuasible from the members of the group (Hebrews 13:17). Decisions are made on a group basis,

after discussion and prayer, with the facilitation and final presentation of the decision falling to the

leader of the group in question. In the eldership group, it is likely that a spokesman will emerge, a

single leader who is most preeminent in some ways because of his knowledge, character and

experience. He will perhaps become the recognised lead elder (bishop) of the church – not officially

though, and this dynamic might change over time also, as it seems to have done in the first century

church regarding Peter and James. The biblical pattern of “Young men, be submissive to those who are

older”, and everyone “clothe yourselves with humility towards one another” (1 Peter5:5) should be

taught and observed by the church as a whole, to prevent competitiveness and pride emerging and

splits occurring. 21. We can all learn to take initiative to invite people over who we want to learn from, to hang out with

them informally, and pick up what they can give us. Also we can take initiative to take others under

our wing. Emphasis will be put on personal responsibility to look after one another. If you see

someone who looks unhappy, it becomes your job at that point, to do something to encourage that

person, to set up some time and get to know them. If we believe in people, they will rise to this

challenge. It will not happen overnight, so we should have a transition plan, as I will outline in the next

section. But when the transition is complete, it will be worth it. The initiative people express towards

others will feel like love to those who receive it, because it will be love – free initiative to help another,

with nothing in it for the giver. It will be worth so much more than a discipler getting worried about

them and getting time with them. This is because this could easily feel like someone getting worried

and fearful about being challenged over someone in their ministry falling away. Such feelings could

actually even push the person further away, even if the discipler’s motives were pure.

22. I believe that this model will go much further to prevent people “falling through the cracks” than our

present discipling model, which has been tried, tinkered with, persevered with and endlessly reworked,

but still cannot prevent the endless flood of people leaving.

23. My final comment on this point is that I found it quite interesting to learn that the Jewish Rabbinic

system of teaching in Jesus time involved the choice of the individual being taught. The individual

approached a Rabbi he respected, and sought to learn from him. In addition to this, the culture of

questioning and debate was encouraged in all the Rabbinic schools, and the basis of authority was

scriptural reasoning, not positional leadership authority. It’s hard to imagine that without a lot of

explicit apostolic teaching (which I haven’t found in the NT), the norms of the Jewish cultural

background on this issue would be dispensed with altogether in the structure of the New Testament

church. It’s equally hard to believe that, without specific instruction, they would have been replaced by

a totally new set, culturally relevant only to the 20th century age of pyramid network marketing. M. A suggested implementation program and teaching program, to assist in the transition.

1. The first thing I would like to address here is the fact that in the New Testament, there was a very

evident “culture” of prayer. When there was a serious question to be worked out, they prayed about it –

usually all of them, not just the leaders. Where possible, the whole church got together. In Acts 1:23,

the church of 120 disciples prayed about who should be added to the eleven to become an apostle. In

Acts 4:31, the church was under attack, and they got together and prayed. When Peter was in prison,

“the church was earnestly praying to God for him.” (Acts 12:5) clearly at times together in large

groups (Acts12:12). They had a culture of prayer, a knee jerk reaction to pray together about anything

that needed to be done, or any pressing issues. Can we claim to have such a culture? My feeling is that,

because the ordinary disciple has little if any involvement in the decision making process, there is less

enthusiasm to get emotionally, mentally or spiritually involved at all. “What will happen will happen”

Is the prevailing feeling. This series of meetings now being proposed could signal a major change in

the church’s perception of these things, and unleash a great enthusiasm for communal prayer.

2. I understand that when a church gets really big, it becomes logistically impossible to give everyone a

direct voice in a group discussion. So how did the huge Jerusalem church deal with this problem in

Acts 15? They sent delegations to a council in Jerusalem. In this council, there was - “much

discussion” amongst the apostles and elders. People were obviously not all in perfect agreement at

first, and thrashed it out in open debate until a clear voice of reason appeared, which in this instance

was James. I don’t think it would be fair to say that everyone’s voice counted the same. The Apostles

had a dominance and weight to their words, no doubt – a special circumstance associated with their

God given authority. But James wasn’t an apostle per se, in that he was not one of the twelve, nor was

he chosen by lot or through a revelation. He was the physical brother of Jesus, so that carried a great

weight to it also, but I believe, if the accounts of the early church fathers are to be believed, he was

respected because of his righteousness, prayerfulness and wisdom, and came to preeminence mainly because of this. Jude was equally a brother of Jesus, and a disciple, but we don’t see him on equal

standing with James in the book of Acts, though he was clearly highly respected, having a book he

wrote included in the canon. Reason and validity seemed to be the main currency, and this was

determined through open discussion.

3. As mentioned before, in the early church, there seemed to be a culture of opening the floor to

discussion, combined with the culture of prayer. In Acts 11:1-2, Peter – the pillar, the highly respected,

the one with the keys to the kingdom, is criticized quite openly by the circumcised believers for going

to the house of a Gentile and eating with him. He has to defend his actions rationally and persuasively,

and finally wins them over. This probably wouldn’t happen in a church which had a tight leadership

pyramid. The detractors would be considered divisive, and shut down in the name of unity by the main

leader. They would be told simply to trust God, to understand that God is in control of the leadership

decisions, so they don’t have to worry. If they kept it up, they would be excluded and shamed. So I

believe that a lot of open discussion is required before anything is decided, lets say over a period of

three months.

4. Implementation plan

i. 3 months of communal prayer, fasting, teaching and structured debate in all the churches.

ii. 2 years of pilot implementation in the Sydney church. Assessment, and more communal prayer and

discussion at the end of the first year. Continued communication and regular updates for all churches

as to the progress. Further assessment and discussion at the end of the second year. Other churches

can start to move in this direction too as desired, or at least prepare the ground for change.

iii. Implementation in the whole church, of a plan moderated by the assessment process.

5. A suggested teaching program 1) Isaiah (10 weeks)

(4 weeks of other activities / lessons as desired by the group)

2) The Mystery of Christ in Ephesians. (6 weeks)

(2 weeks of other activities / lessons as desired by the group)

3) Love, in the book of John (5 weeks)

(2 weeks of other activities / lessons as desired by the group)

4) Knowing God, in the book of Luke. (8 weeks)

(3 weeks of other activities / lessons as desired by the group)

5) Deep Conviction in Acts (7 weeks)

(3 weeks of other activities / lessons as desired by the group)

6) Biblical Leadership (4 weeks)

(1 week of other activities / lessons as desired by the group)

7) Unity and Freedom in Galatians (4 weeks)

(2 weeks of other activities / lessons as desired by the group)

8) Dealing with unrighteousness in the church. (3 weeks)

(1 weeks of other activities / lessons as desired by the group)

9) The Sermon on the Mount (7 weeks)

(3 weeks of other activities / lessons as desired by the group)

10) Evidence for the Bible (4 weeks) (1 week of other activities / lessons as desired by the group)

11) Faith in the book of Daniel (5 weeks)

(2 weeks of other activities / lessons as desired by the group)

12) One another relationships in I John (5 weeks)

(2 weeks of other activities / lessons as desired by the group)

13) The Holy Spirit (4 weeks)

(1 week of other activities / lessons as desired by the group)

14) The Return of Christ and the End Times (4 weeks)

week of other activities / lessons as desired by the group)

5. These topics would be taken as general discussion topics in the home groups, generally led by the

deacons, and special teaching lessons are done by the teachers on the Wednesday nights when

everyone is together. Sundays are left to the Evangelists to organise lessons as required, although the

teachers and elders may also give lessons at times. Interspersed with the small group discussions would

be some purely social nights and prayer nights at the home group level, and nights for meeting other

needs. So some slack is built into the program so that the groups can go longer on some topics if

desired, or have some social events instead, or even squeeze in topics of their own, without getting out

of synch with the rest of the church. The above teaching program is designed to cover the two years of

pilot implementation, 104 weeks.

6. Instead of the usual leader’s meeting after church on Sunday, a two-part meeting could be held. The

first part could be held by the teachers - a special teaching forum implemented for the deacons, a time

for them to cross fertilize ideas as well as get some help regarding background issues in the topics, and

strategies for encouraging and guiding discussions effectively. The second part could be held by the elders, as a means of finding out if there are any concerns that need to be addressed. If there are

administration needs, the administrators could also chime in from time to time. These meetings would

also, inevitably, be times for some debate and discussion about how the system is working, and how to

make it better. The deacons would be representing the opinions of their group at the meeting, with the

elders moderating the discussion. The meeting could also be a time of group prayer for wisdom in

handling the issues at hand, and also for praying for the needs of individuals.

7. Of course, strict confidentiality applies if it is requested in any relationship. But often there are needs

that go unnoticed where this is not an issue. For example, people who don’t come along for one reason

or another, who don’t seem happy, or who have physical needs that aren’t being met. The Elders are

responsible and accountable for overseeing the church, so they have a right to know what’s going on in

the flock. They may give direction to the deacons, or take some initiative to do something themselves.

They can direct the group to pray for these people in their own time, and monitor the situation each

week. They can divert funds to meet physical needs, or arrange events which will address the situation.

It might be suggested that this is really similar to what we are doing already. The main difference is the

quality and experience of the people who are in the deacon position. They are not young single men

and women, but veterans of many years standing. The Elders and administrators are also much more

central to the day to day running of the church, and the teachers central to the teaching program, with

the evangelist left to his primary role of preaching the message. In my experience, problems have often

occurred when someone who is, let’s say, a talented evangelist, is also expected to do the other three

roles, when they are not particularly his gift. He then feels shamed when he is removed from the

ministry, for being expected to do something he readily admits he is not good at, but had to do anyway.

N. A vision for the future.

1. I believe that this church has within it the makings of something truly great. The very fact that we are

engaging in this unheard of practice of turning decades of tradition upside-down, shows that there is

something very different about this group. We are not different because we have got everything right, but we can prove ourselves to be brilliantly and indisputably different if we show that we can keep on

radically changing as we learn more and understand more about what it means to follow Christ. It’s

hard to find a precedent for this. Most churches settle into tradition, and that is that. Imagine how

amazed everyone would be if the Pope turned around and admitted that he wasn’t infallible, or said

that Mary was not to be worshipped. Imagine if the charismatic movement turned around and admitted

that they had been leading people astray with phony miracles. You would have to respect them for that

wouldn’t you, after you recovered from your utter shock and amazement? That is the kind of thing that

we, “the discipling movement”, would be doing by abandoning discipling. It would send the critics

scrambling, it would get those who left us reconsidering, it would impress and convict so many other

people across the world, as many as were to study the bible with us from here on, or hear about us on

the grape vine. No longer would we be “the cult”, but rather the church that used to be a cult, and

totally, humbly transformed itself into a wonderful, vibrant community of Christians. Yes, I’m sure we

won’t be popular everywhere, or for long necessarily, because we will keep on preaching the gospel –

the stench to those who are perishing. But at least we will be unpopular for the right reasons – the

gospel, not our former cultish practices.

2. One of the main disappointments I have experienced over the years has been the profound lack of

initiative and personal conviction I have seen in the lives of most disciples in the various ministries I

have led. This is the main thing I believe will be reduced markedly by the measures I have been

suggesting. I would say it will take at least 5 years to see the full effect come to light, but I believe it

will be well worth waiting for. After all, one of the primary aims of this movement has been precisely

this – to have a church in which almost everyone is a “true disciple”, in other words – a spiritual self

starter, someone with deep conviction who truly loves God, and has God’s interests at heart. We have

wanted this, but it has eluded us until now. Perhaps the hope was good, but the method was lacking.

Perhaps the direct approach failed, and it is time to try the indirect approach. With freedom, and the

teaching and relationships to support it, this initiative and enthusiasm will become both possible and

evident. How inspiring will it be to be part of such a church? 3. I believe that with such an enlivened church, we cannot fail to grow in number, to contribute to the

community, and to have all kinds of projects and activities starting up all over the place because of the

sheer conviction and enthusiasm of ordinary disciples. It might feel a little out of control, but it won’t

be, because God will be inspiring them and guiding them, and the teaching and encouragement they

will be receiving will keep them on the right track. Of course, there will always be problems in

relationships, problems with sin, more issues to deal with and so on. We are even sure to turn whatever

we come up with now on its head in another decade or two, and continue to move even closer to the

truth. But it is precisely this kind of “movement” which makes us “the movement”.

4. I cannot believe that God does not have a plan in mind to bring large sections of the religious world

into the light. They are so close, many of them, that I cannot accept that God is not, as we speak,

devising brilliant plans to bring about their salvation. These may rock some of our traditions, so I

believe we must be alert to what our traditions really are, as opposed to what the Bible purely says. I

believe that the way forward with such groups is, wherever possible, to seek constructive dialogue.

Since we will (I hope) have some major changes to bring to the table ourselves, I believe there is a

much better chance of them listening to reason and also changing what they need to change. Granted,

most will tend to stick with their traditions, but if only one or two ministers and their churches – out of

thousands - responded; it could start a domino effect through many other branches of that church, and

spill over into other church groups also. This is my vision, and I don’t believe it is impossible now. If I

had to defend an unbiblical doctrine like discipling to them, then maybe it would be impossible. But

without that, all the guns of the bible are pointing at their heads. They can’t defend their faulty

conversion doctrines forever, sooner or later people will start to realise that they are running away

from the truth, and have to face up to it or face God on judgement day. I believe that now is the time to

pray for this to happen, and to make contingency plans for how we will facilitate some kind of unity

and fellowship with these churches when they do change. I don’t believe that we can justify insisting

that they all turn up in our hall, because I seriously don’t think they will all fit! But we need to plan

around ways of feeding these other flocks, and making the whole lot of us into an integrated, unified church – even if we do meet in other halls around the city. Of course none of this will ever happen

unless we reach out to these churches, and pray earnestly that they be saved.

5. I believe that because people will be living their own lives freely according to their own convictions

and talents, this will produce a truly rich weave of impact in the community – from sport, radio, the

arts and film, to music, business and technology. From local projects to help the elderly, the poor, the

sick or whatever, to ambitious international aid projects for refugees, assisting AIDS victims, helping

the environment, and creating sustainable development projects for the poor.

6. I see a church which is truly deep in the Bible, getting a healthy diet, and encouragement to drink ever

deeper from the well of God’s word. I see a church in which experience is valued, and leaders are

respected because of the outcome of their lives, not merely because of their role and their zealous

personality. I see a church in which the worldly model of respect for youth and outward beauty will no

longer be reflected in our midst, but rather the model of respect for the heart and character; respect for

wisdom, perseverance and experience. This is precisely the sentiment which Martin Luther King is

remembered for – his dream that men will be judged by the content of their character rather than by

outward superficialities – in his case, the colour of their skin. The fact that this statement resonates so

strongly in our hearts, to me shows that society ultimately accepts the fact that it is wrong in its

perspective. I see a church that is able to lead society out of error, rather than constantly follow them

into it.

7. I want to emphasise that the ideas I have written, while being deep convictions of mine at the moment,

are not expected to be all taken on and implemented immediately, or at all necessarily – if they can be

biblically refuted. I would actually be quite scared by anyone in leadership suddenly taking all or most

on board as I know how incomplete my perspective is, and how liable it is to change in the future. I

only ask that they be prayerfully considered, and biblically, rationally assessed. I have written this in

double spaced format so that annotations can be made between lines, and counter opinions and

references cited. This is a discussion paper, an exploration rather than an ultimatum. 8. In conclusion, I am recommending that the discipling structure be dismantled, and replaced by a

structure more in line with the New Testament, based primarily on the biblical roles of elders and

deacons, but also with teachers, evangelists and administrators as essential roles. One on one

accountability can be achieved through unstructured friendships, semi structured prayer partnerships

small, and voluntary locally organised single sex encouragement groups etc. I believe that discipling is

holding back the growth of the church, suffocating it and crippling it. I believe it is time to follow the

lead of the Holy Spirit, and set the church free.

Load more

  58

Copy Link