|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: What is a disciple?
|
Ramarius
Shipmate
# 16551
|
Posted
Before Christians were called "Christian" they were called disciples. So if we we drop the label "Christian" and ask the question "What characterises a disciple of Jesus Christ?" what do we come up with?
--------------------
'
Posts: 950 | From: Virtually anywhere | Registered: Jul 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
If 'Christian' were good enough for St Paul, Ramarius ...
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
I don't like the question, quite frankly, because it implies that there are 'Christians' who may or may not be true disciples and that there are 'disciples' who are the real deal.
Although there's a lot we can do with that which isn't immediately obvious. I remember an Orthodox chap observing to me about an online report of extremely ascetic hermits found living in the Romanian woods, 'It's good to know that there are some Christians about ...'
![[Biased]](wink.gif)
It seems to me that all traditions make this kind of distinction to a greater or lesser extent. Hence, in the more sacramental traditions such as the RCs and the Orthodox you'll find talk of 'the faithful' - ie. those who appear to take their faith more seriously and who are regular at the Eucharist, in alms-giving, parish and charitable work etc.
And we're all familiar with the Protestant versions of this too.
The brush-off answer to your question would be, 'The Lord knows those who are his ...'
But I s'pose we have to pin things down somewhere. I suppose we are all and only disciples to the extent that we seek to follow Christ in attitudes, deeds and words and love God and our neighbour as ourselves.
Consequently, our level of discipleship can vary from day to day and week to week.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ramarius
Shipmate
# 16551
|
Posted
I remember back in the 80's a lot being made of the dustinction between "Christian" and "disciple." The idea was that being a disciple was some kind of mark of Christian maturity. It's not a distinction I find in NT - the terms are synonymous. I suppose I'm exploring how you might think of your faith if, first and foremost, you started with the idea of discipleship as opposed to, say, becoming a Christian means undergoing a sacremental rite like baptism, or a one off crisis experience like saying the sinner's prayer. The Orthodox idea of the Christian faith being a journey to Theosis captures some of this.
Posts: 950 | From: Virtually anywhere | Registered: Jul 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Raptor Eye
Shipmate
# 16649
|
Posted
For me, a Christian is a disciple of Christ, ie someone who adheres to the guidance of the living Christ as given through the Holy Spirit, whether directly or by way of the scriptures or Church.
The way this reveals itself in our lives varies according to God's timing: as well as drawing near and following, we're sent out.
We may try to prescribe the conditions before which someone may be counted as a Christian, but AFAIAC the only condition is a readiness to accept Christ into our lives.
--------------------
Be still, and know that I am God! Psalm 46.10
Posts: 4359 | From: The United Kingdom | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Latchkey Kid
Shipmate
# 12444
|
Posted
I thought they were first called followers of the way.
Discipleship was a common. Something that distinguished disciples of Jesus from disciples of other rabbis, according to the gospels, was that Jesus called his disciples and immediately they left everything and followed Him.
The rabbi tradition was that a person sought out a rabbi and asked to become a disciple. If the rabbi thought they were worthy they would accept them.
There was hardly any precedent for Jesus' approach, except perhaps Elijah and Elisha, who, if I recall correctly, was allowed to go back and kiss his mother and father before he followed him.
--------------------
'You must never give way for an answer. An answer is always the stretch of road that's behind you. Only a question can point the way forward.'
Mika; in Hello? Is Anybody There?, Jostein Gaardner
Posts: 2592 | From: The wizardest little town in Oz | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Latchkey Kid
Shipmate
# 12444
|
Posted
I agree with you Leo.
I think this reflects a view that there is no sacred/profane distinction and all is sacred(my view), or, if preferred, that the sacred should pervade the whole of the profane.
--------------------
'You must never give way for an answer. An answer is always the stretch of road that's behind you. Only a question can point the way forward.'
Mika; in Hello? Is Anybody There?, Jostein Gaardner
Posts: 2592 | From: The wizardest little town in Oz | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I agree with all of that - Leo and Latchkey Kid.
@Ramarius - it may have escaped your notice but we're not living in the first century any more. Funny that. So I can't see how we can 'Pol Pot' things back to some kind of 'Year Zero' and apply first generation conditions to the current position here in the West.
You can't ignore an accumulated 2,000 years of Christianity, cultural Christianity and post-Christendom Christianity ... you have to deal with the situation as it currently is, not as you might like it to be.
I think the Orthodox view, as you articulate it, is right but it's also accompanied by what many of the more evangelical types here within Western Christianity would regard as nominalism or a laissez-faire approach. An evangelical convert to Orthodoxy that I know was shocked, initially, to discover that the minimum standard was attendance at the Eucharist once a year - a shockingly nominal state-of-affairs given his background in restorationist charismatic evangelicaldom.
He know feels that it's part and parcel of respecting human freedom and that to do necessitates a certain amount of latitude.
An Anglican priest once observed to me that the 'house-churches' and restorationists and the like were taking a standard of discipleship that might be appropriate for the monastery or 'covenant community' (such as brotherhood/sisterhood or retreat-house etc) and making it almost compulsory for ordinary, every day folk.
I didn't grasp what she meant at the time but looking back I can see what she was driving at. There's a constant upping of the ante in charismatic evangelical circles, often over rather peripheral issues - hence things like tongues or tithing become the sine qua non of congregational membership or involvement.
I would argue that our level of discipleship varies from day to day and week to week and often depends on our physical and material circumstances, our stage in life (single, married, divorced etc) and a whole range of other factors.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
My view is that the grading of commitment in Christian circles (particularly in the so called evangelical-cum-charismatic world) is toxic.
Having experienced the constant insecurity that such judgmentalism produces, I have come to the conclusion that anyone who declares himself to be "wholehearted for God", "sold out for Christ", "giving my all for the Lord" etc, is, by that very act of self-assessment, half-hearted and compromising. Why? Because such a person is talking about himself, and therefore denying the very grace of God he claims to be so receptive to. (In fact, such a person doesn't really believe in the grace of God at all, it has to be said).
A Christian who is truly committed would never think she is, because someone with such devotion to the love and grace of God wouldn't be thinking about herself at all.
This is a very useful "rule of thumb" that I apply in my observations of the Christian world, and its use could save many Christians a great deal of grief.
However, having said that... there is something even more toxic, which I have also had the great misfortune to experience. So the spiritually proud person realises that he cannot make these grand claims for himself, so what does he do? Ah yes... he revels in false humility: "Well, of course, I have my faults.... blah blah blah..." (currying sympathy from the congregation with his all-too-human and humorously embarrassing shortcomings), and this, of course, gives him permission to focus then on the glaring faults of others (faults, of course, that are far more spiritually serious than his forgiveable little pecadillos!).
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Could it not be that all such grading is misguided, as EE suggests - because it inevitably leads to either a form or hubris or else a nauseatingly Uriah Heap style of faux humility?
Indeed, there does seem to be a fair bit in the Gospels to warn against all kinds of outward shows of piety - 'I assure you, they have their reward already.'
Looking back at my more full-on evangelical charismatic days I see oodles and oodles of spiritual pride, one-up-manship and a desire to 'perform' in order to get noticed by the leaders etc etc.
I'm sure that in 15 years or so's time when I look back on where I'm at now, I'd probably see the same kind of thing only expressed in a different way. 'Oh wretched man that I am!'
It does seem to me, though, cut it however we might, there is an intrinsically judgemental (and very binary) approach within evangelicalism which tries to divide the world into clear-cut categories - who's saved and who isn't, who is a 'committed' disciple and who isn't ... and so on and so forth ad infinitum.
Most of the time, I would suggest, it's a case of barking up the wrong tree. The real issues are a lot more nuanced and more complicated and the real action is probably going on elsewhere.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Raptor Eye
Shipmate
# 16649
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
My view is that the grading of commitment in Christian circles (particularly in the so called evangelical-cum-charismatic world) is toxic.
Having experienced the constant insecurity that such judgmentalism produces, I have come to the conclusion that anyone who declares himself to be "wholehearted for God", "sold out for Christ", "giving my all for the Lord" etc, is, by that very act of self-assessment, half-hearted and compromising. Why? Because such a person is talking about himself, and therefore denying the very grace of God he claims to be so receptive to. (In fact, such a person doesn't really believe in the grace of God at all, it has to be said).
A Christian who is truly committed would never think she is, because someone with such devotion to the love and grace of God wouldn't be thinking about herself at all.
While I agree that measuring other people's commitment is toxic, I see nothing wrong with measuring our own commitment, nor with sharing our own faith experiences with fellow Christians, as long as it's genuine and not meant to blow our own trumpets or to show false humility. There's a place for honesty.
If someone doesn't think about herself at all, she might be in danger of showing herself less love and kindness than she does to others. Is this desirable or sustainable?
--------------------
Be still, and know that I am God! Psalm 46.10
Posts: 4359 | From: The United Kingdom | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Flossymole
Apprentice
# 17339
|
Posted
Originally posted by Ramarius
quote:
I suppose I'm exploring how you might think of your faith if, first and foremost, you started with the idea of discipleship as opposed to, say, becoming a Christian means undergoing a sacremental rite like baptism, or a one off crisis experience like saying the sinner's prayer. The Orthodox idea of the Christian faith being a journey to Theosis captures some of this.
This resonates with me because that is the idea I started with, and didn't think about baptism till many years later.
Meanwhile I agree with more or less everything everybody else has said on this thread.
Posts: 43 | From: Derbyshire UK | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ramarius
Shipmate
# 16551
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Latchkey Kid:
I agree with you Leo.
I think this reflects a view that there is no sacred/profane distinction and all is sacred(my view), or, if preferred, that the sacred should pervade the whole of the profane.
I think that's a great description of discipleship, an entirely consistent with the first century concept.
Posts: 950 | From: Virtually anywhere | Registered: Jul 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Truman White
Shipmate
# 17290
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
An Anglican priest once observed to me that the 'house-churches' and restorationists and the like were taking a standard of discipleship that might be appropriate for the monastery or 'covenant community' (such as brotherhood/sisterhood or retreat-house etc) and making it almost compulsory for ordinary, every day folk.
I didn't grasp what she meant at the time but looking back I can see what she was driving at. There's a constant upping of the ante in charismatic evangelical circles, often over rather peripheral issues - hence things like tongues or tithing become the sine qua non of congregational membership or involvement.
I would argue that our level of discipleship varies from day to day and week to week and often depends on our physical and material circumstances, our stage in life (single, married, divorced etc) and a whole range of other factors.
There's a lot we can learn from monastic practice. It's inspired various versions of the Rule of Life idea which challenges us to think seriously about what our discipleship means in practice.
Posts: 476 | Registered: Aug 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
Gamaliel
You may not be aware but just before the Reformation there were local societies that formed in various towns and such whose concern was very much about discipleship and such things as having a rule of life.
It is suggested by my supervisor to me that in some way the Reformers were very much successors to these societies. Hence the concentration on personal morality both in Strasbourg and Geneva.
Such personal difference of morality is still strong enough even within the URC for me to be able to write about it within my thesis. The signs I would look for do not include tithing but do:
- tee-totalism (or the limited consumption of alcohol);
- gambling (all right you may be in a lottery syndicate much more is discouraged);
- smoking (not sure why!);
- not swearing
- justice and peace activism;
- green behaviour e.g. car sharing, recycling
- vegetarianism
- pacifism
Most pick and choose but someone adopting the full lot is not going to fit easily into mainstream society. Indeed just have one can bring significant tensions, I for instance do not gamble, and it means I cannot participate in most fund-raising for charity within my department at work. It should come as no surprise that up to around fifty years ago many Nonconformist communities acted as a society within a society, often socialising with each other and so forth including using business of people like them.
Jengie
--------------------
"To violate a persons ability to distinguish fact from fantasy is the epistemological equivalent of rape." Noretta Koertge
Back to my blog
Posts: 20894 | From: city of steel, butterflies and rainbows | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye
While I agree that measuring other people's commitment is toxic, I see nothing wrong with measuring our own commitment, nor with sharing our own faith experiences with fellow Christians, as long as it's genuine and not meant to blow our own trumpets or to show false humility. There's a place for honesty.
If someone doesn't think about herself at all, she might be in danger of showing herself less love and kindness than she does to others. Is this desirable or sustainable?
Of course, we can think about our own spiritual lives, but there is a fine line between self-assessment and the assessment of others.
As for honesty: that was another idea that was co-opted into the cause of accusation and judgmentalism in one of the fellowships I used to attend: "We must be honest with each other...", meaning, of course, that "I have the right to poke around in your life, whether you like it or not."
There are certain church leaders who seem to have a way of dragging information out of people, by appealing to the virtues of honesty, openness, fellowship, sharing and mutual help. But some information is, frankly, none of their business.
As for "measuring our own commitment": can spiritual commitment actually be measured? How do you measure it? And if there are certain laws by which it can be measured, then how can you measure your own commitment without in any way even thinking about the commitment of other people according to those same laws? It is inevitable that the measuring of one's own commitment will lead to the judging of other people - if only in subtle ways.
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Thanks Jengie - I wasn't aware of the pre-Reformation 'societies' of which you speak but it doesn't surprise me - none of these things happen in a vacuum of course and there was a lot of continuity between pre and post-Reformation spirituality - it wasn't a 'clean break' by any means, of course.
I s'pose my comments are more around the intensity involved in levels of commitment/non-conformity and so on. I'm certainly not deriding neo-monastic movements nor rules of life and so on - nor the list that you've produced from a URC perspective/background.
I'm well-aware that up until about 50 years ago non-conformist groups were more counter-cultural than perhaps they are now - a society within a society as it were.
What struck me about the house-churches was the selectiveness of the whole thing - rampant capitalism and consumerism was rarely questioned and whilst they weren't as nit-picking as the older Pentecostal groups when it came to issues like smoking and drinking (or going to the cinema which was still seen as sinful at that time by certain Pentie and Brethren types) ... they still had a rather personalised and often idiosyncratic view of what constituted sin and personal morality ...
Or so it seems to me in retrospect.
The 'commitment' and 'covenant' thing was also ratcheted up to a greater and tighter extent than would have been normal at that time within the more traditional non-conformist groups.
The Baptists, on the other hand, seemed more interested in green issues/social issues more generally ... rather in the way you've described for the URC.
On the whole, these days I'd suggest that there's a broadly 'green' agenda across mainstream UK evangelicalism and its more liberal cousins within Methodism or the URC.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Truman White
Shipmate
# 17290
|
Posted
Gamaliel reminisced
[QUOTE] What struck me about the house-churches was the selectiveness of the whole thing - rampant capitalism and consumerism was rarely questioned and whilst they weren't as nit-picking as the older Pentecostal groups when it came to issues like smoking and drinking (or going to the cinema which was still seen as sinful at that time by certain Pentie and Brethren types) ... they still had a rather personalised and often idiosyncratic view of what constituted sin and personal morality ...
Or so it seems to me in retrospect [/QB]
You weren't in a Pioneer house church then.
Posts: 476 | Registered: Aug 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
que sais-je
Shipmate
# 17185
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
- tee-totalism (or the limited consumption of alcohol);
- gambling (all right you may be in a lottery syndicate much more is discouraged);
- smoking (not sure why!);
- not swearing
- justice and peace activism;
- green behaviour e.g. car sharing, recycling
- vegetarianism
- pacifism
Most pick and choose but someone adopting the full lot is not going to fit easily into mainstream society.
Good job I drink - it made fitting into mainstream society a lot easier!
B*****, I just noticed the not swearing condition!
--------------------
"controversies, disputes, and argumentations, both in philosophy and in divinity, if they meet with discreet and peaceable natures, do not infringe the laws of charity" (Thomas Browne)
Posts: 794 | From: here or there | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Waterchaser
Shipmate
# 11005
|
Posted
Interesting answers. There wasn't anything in the original question that made me think that Ramarius was trying to grade Christians although some of the answers have assumed that.
Christian litarally = little christ/mini anointed one.
Disciple = apprentice/follower
It doesn't seem a prouder starting point in the light of this to think of ourselves as Disciples as well as Christians.
In terms of trying to ignore 2000 years of history of course that is impossible. However I think its still good to go back to the gospels and think through for ourselves with the help of the Holy Spirit what following Jesus means in our own culture and context.
Posts: 310 | From: Luton, UK | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
tclune
Shipmate
# 7959
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Waterchaser:
Christian litarally = little christ/mini anointed one.
This is almost assuredly false. The usual view is that "christianoi" is a back-formation of a Latin ending into Greek. It meant something like "partisans of," and was a suffix commonly used in a political context to identify the followers of Caesar, Herod, etc. FWIW
--Tom Clune
[ 14. October 2012, 21:19: Message edited by: tclune ]
--------------------
This space left blank intentionally.
Posts: 8013 | From: Western MA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Raptor Eye
Shipmate
# 16649
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Of course, we can think about our own spiritual lives, but there is a fine line between self-assessment and the assessment of others.
I agree.
quote:
As for honesty: that was another idea that was co-opted into the cause of accusation and judgmentalism in one of the fellowships I used to attend: "We must be honest with each other...", meaning, of course, that "I have the right to poke around in your life, whether you like it or not."
There are certain church leaders who seem to have a way of dragging information out of people, by appealing to the virtues of honesty, openness, fellowship, sharing and mutual help. But some information is, frankly, none of their business.
Again, there's a fine line to be drawn: between encouraging open and honest relationships and trust between people, and prying for its own sake or for purposes of control.
quote:
As for "measuring our own commitment": can spiritual commitment actually be measured? How do you measure it? And if there are certain laws by which it can be measured, then how can you measure your own commitment without in any way even thinking about the commitment of other people according to those same laws? It is inevitable that the measuring of one's own commitment will lead to the judging of other people - if only in subtle ways.
It can be measured by how much of our lives are spent in the service of God, not only by commitment in terms of action (and I see you are one step ahead by starting a new thread on performance) but in terms of of consciousness of the Holy Spirit. To pray continuously translates for me into constant consciousness of God and how thoughts, words and actions hold up to the standard of Christ.
While I accept it as a danger, I don't think it inevitable that self-assessment will lead to comparison of or judgement of others, particularly as such would not meet the standard of Christ.
--------------------
Be still, and know that I am God! Psalm 46.10
Posts: 4359 | From: The United Kingdom | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
churchgeek
Have candles, will pray
# 5557
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Could it not be that all such grading is misguided, as EE suggests - because it inevitably leads to either a form or hubris or else a nauseatingly Uriah Heap style of faux humility?
Indeed, there does seem to be a fair bit in the Gospels to warn against all kinds of outward shows of piety - 'I assure you, they have their reward already.'
Looking back at my more full-on evangelical charismatic days I see oodles and oodles of spiritual pride, one-up-manship and a desire to 'perform' in order to get noticed by the leaders etc etc.
I'm sure that in 15 years or so's time when I look back on where I'm at now, I'd probably see the same kind of thing only expressed in a different way. 'Oh wretched man that I am!'
It does seem to me, though, cut it however we might, there is an intrinsically judgemental (and very binary) approach within evangelicalism which tries to divide the world into clear-cut categories - who's saved and who isn't, who is a 'committed' disciple and who isn't ... and so on and so forth ad infinitum.
Most of the time, I would suggest, it's a case of barking up the wrong tree. The real issues are a lot more nuanced and more complicated and the real action is probably going on elsewhere.
I tend to think some of this is due to our human tendency to want certainties. Doubt and uncertainty create intellectual, emotional, and other tensions that our brains naturally seek to resolve. And what would cause a more pressing tension than uncertainty about whether you were "in" or "out" of the Kingdom of God? Having that uncertainty should lead to trust in God and attention to one's own spirituality, but it's easier to try to resolve it by drawing lines around in- and out-groups, usually in a way that puts yourself (and your like-minded friends) in the "in" camp.
One thing that leads to is an evangelism that includes cultural elements that aren't actually part of the Gospel, but the in-group adheres to them, and it's hard to distinguish: hence, true disciples are averse to men with long hair or earrings, to tattoos, to drinking, smoking, or dancing, etc... Or worse - such as the evangelism of peoples all over the world into Western or white culture.
IMO. YMMV.
--------------------
I reserve the right to change my mind.
My article on the Virgin of Vladimir
Posts: 7773 | From: Detroit | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Latchkey Kid
Shipmate
# 12444
|
Posted
Because I have been a bit of a measurement freak in my professional life my warning antennae start sounding bells when I hear discussion about measuring/grading/ranking spirituality or discipleship.
If there could be a measure it would be a composite measure which is an aggregation of a set of measures with each measure given a weight.
So who would be the arbiter for deciding the relative weights?
There will be some sort of mix between measures that are on nominal, ordinal, interval, and ratio scales that would have to be mixed.
In the absence of any agreed composite measurement I would say that we are not measuring, but making judgments, and that the use of the term 'measurement' would be to give it an importance and reality that does not exist. So don't use the term.
OK. I've ridden that hobby horse enough.
--------------------
'You must never give way for an answer. An answer is always the stretch of road that's behind you. Only a question can point the way forward.'
Mika; in Hello? Is Anybody There?, Jostein Gaardner
Posts: 2592 | From: The wizardest little town in Oz | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Latchkey Kid
Shipmate
# 12444
|
Posted
A brief hop back on.
A useful generalisation about measurement.
"If it's easy to measure it's not important. If it's important, it's not easy to measure."
[ 14. October 2012, 22:56: Message edited by: Latchkey Kid ]
Posts: 2592 | From: The wizardest little town in Oz | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
