Learning from our history….
A recent article by Frank Viola (Discipleship, Mission, and Church: A Plea to Learn Our History) challenged me to reflect on some of my past experiences in a new way.
Personally, I have a lot of history to learn from (I’m one of those guys people refer to as an “elder” — e.g. “old guy”) having come to know Jesus nearly 60 years ago. But, even more important than learning from my own history, I want to learn from our collective history so I can enter more fully into what God is saying to the church today rather than looking back to what was (or wasn’t) or might have been.
Of particular interest were Frank’s observations on “discipleship”, especially his comments regarding the Discipleship/Shepherding Movement – and the reactive swing to the other end of the spectrum that has contributed to the lack of maturity seen in so many areas of the church today.
He states:
Some very gifted ministers took the wheel of that revival [the “Jesus Movement” of the 60s –mdh] and spawned a new movement that became known as the “discipleship” movement (also called the “shepherding” movement). They reinstated all the old methods of discipleship, but they introduced a new theology and vocabulary to go with it. It was the theology of “submission to delegated authority.”
When the dust finally cleared, the discipleship movement left a trail of bruised and battered souls, some of whom have never recovered to this good day. In the minds of many Christians, “discipleship” became a four-letter word. So the pendulum against legalism and authoritarianism swung hard again.
As part of the Discipleship/Shepherding movement of the 70’s and 80’s , I know intimately the excesses and abuses that evolved and the pain that was experienced by so many, yet there were concepts and insights being “restored” to the church that initially brought life and hope to many of us. (sidebar: Most “shepherds” in the movement were not abusive, but the abuses that did exist became the focus, derailing what I believe started as a genuine move of God). While it is not my intention to provide an in-depth analysis of the Discipleship Movement, my personal assessment is that the “positive” contributions of that movement were overwhelmed by one major flaw – we were putting new wine into old wine skins (in spite of much teaching to the contrary).
Specifically, we were trying to bring people to a more intimate relationship with the Lord Jesus by providing personal oversight and care (so often lacking in the “institutional church”) – however, we attempted to do so through a hierarchical structure not unlike those of the institutional church to which we were reacting (see: Pagan Christianity?, Viola, F. and Barna, G.; esp. pp 109 – 115 w/footnotes). The major difference was that the hierarchy of the discipleship movement was relational rather than institutional, built on the personal connections between the “shepherd and sheep” fostered through one-to-one and small group “discipling”. The very nature of that relationship magnified its impact, promoting growth when positive, but causing much more intense and immediate damage when abused.
At the close of Frank’s article is this statement which triggered this post:
Would to God that we learned our history.
In a word, you cannot raise the bar on discipleship without raising the bar on the ekklesia—the living experience of the body of Christ—the native habitat in which true disciple-making and transformation take place.
Closing Challenges
So what’s my point? It’s quite simple. The problem is not with discipleship; the problem lies in our practice of the church. [emphasis mine – mdh]
“Amen…” It was not discipleship which caused the problems, but trying to implement discipleship within a flawed model of “church” that did not and does not reflect the New Testament expression of the ekklesia which is Jesus’ Body in this earth.
Recently, our household (individually and collectively) had our eyes opened to the limitations of the (traditional) church where we had been serving. Once we saw, we could no longer remain in that situation and resigned from our various “positions of service”. Over the years I have been involved in numerous home-based groups and churches, having planted churches from Texas to Missouri to Massachusetts to Florida – but all began with the goal of growing into a traditional expression because that was our understanding of what “church” was supposed to look like. I knew in my spirit that I could not go down that path again.
As we prayed about what to do next, I came across a website on “house church” — and from there to others (see links in sidebar). Much of what I read resonated deeply and I (we) began to read the books, listen to the messages and read the articles related to what God is doing in His church today. Initially, some of the things were hard to accept, but as we continued to read, examining the Scriptures, asking God for understanding, we began to see the power of the deception that has gripped the church and the potential for freedom in practicing church “organically”. We are seeing that there really is a better way – a way to be church that is much closer to what God originally intended.
Today, we are moving ahead slowly; we have begun meeting in our home with a young couple who sees the reality of organic church. We are confident that as we (all) listen and respond to the Holy Spirit, he will enable us to focus more fully on Jesus – allowing Him to really lead and teach us to be an expression of His body in our community.
We would like to hear from others who are on this journey – successes, failures, hardships, blessings. Comments will be reviewed before being posted, so please keep them relevant and yours will be added to the exchange.
God bless.