|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: What type of disciples?
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
"Go and make disciples of all nations..."
I'm beginning to ask the question: what does a disciple look like? The reason I'm asking is that to some people 'discipleship' = 'being as fervent/committed/radical as me'.
In other words, to those who are really 'into doscipleship' there is an inference that the words of Jesus means that everyone in church has to be passionate/engaged/actively involved/willing to pray out loud, attend every service, stand and give their testimony, give out gospel tracts, etc, etc, etc. The implication being that if one doesn't do all these things, one is properly 'discipled.'
But then it occurred to me that Jesus called 12 disciples but only three made the inner circle.
To the Twelve he added another 60 who didn't follow him everywhere and get 3 yrs intense study, but who were still sent out to preach and heal.
Then there were the 120 who crammed into the Upper room prayer meeting and got the Pentecostal outpouring.
Before that there were 500 who saw the risen Jesus.
Can you see what I'm getting at here? Do we assume that discipleship is all about achieving a certain level when actually some are called to be the Three, some the Twelve, some the 72, the 120 or even the outer fringes of the 500?
Why is it that those who talk so much about discipleship seem to think that everyone has to be as radical as them and if they're not, their discipleship is deficient?
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Raptor Eye
Shipmate
# 16649
|
Posted
It's good to encourage discipleship, in the general sense of following Jesus, listening for and discerning calling in communion with each other, and contributing to the whole body of Christ all of the gifts we've been given, with full commitment.
It's not good to prescribe how discipleship should look in others, to judge them, to look down on them, to give status to self or others, or to suggest that anyone should try to achieve standards set by people.
To those who are given more, more will be expected: to humbly serve others in service to God.
--------------------
Be still, and know that I am God! Psalm 46.10
Posts: 4359 | From: The United Kingdom | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angel Wrestler
Ship's Hipster
# 13673
|
Posted
The first question I have is, "how is discipleship defined?"
As I see it played out IRL, it can mean a couple few things - just off the top of my head.
1) someone from outside the faith gets a good Christian talking-to and becomes convinced that they're a no-good, dirty, rotten sinner who needs Jesus to make them right with a rather stern God who wants them to repent just-so and pray a sinner's prayer and any other way is unacceptable.
2) someone who join the church so the pastor can report to whomever he/she reports to, that the church is growing.
3) someone who is raised in the Christian faith and knows no other
4) someone who is believes that mission is more important than worship
5) someone who believes that worship is more important than mission
so.... what is a disciple? but then, in my rambling, maybe that's what the OP means
--------------------
The fact that no one understands you does not make you an artist.
(unknown)
Posts: 2767 | From: half-way up the ladder | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
Mudfrog, I'm coming from a background that totally doesn't talk about discipleship hardly at all (being very uptight and all) so we don't have competitive discipleship, and the mere concept makes me go ![[Eek!]](eek.gif) . I mean, haven't these people figured out that the only judge of a person's discipleship is Christ? He told us all that stuff about getting surprises on the last day...
When I say I want to see more discipleship in my church, what I mean is I want to see people taking more of an interest in their own and one another's growth in Christ. Not in a dictatorial or nosy way; but (for example), if someone is clearly going off the rails in some area, I want leadership and Christian friends to say a quiet word, rather than just watching politely (or worse, gossiping behind someone's back!) as the person goes ahead and hits a wall.
A couple of random things that may or may not mean anything to anybody...
A year or so ago we were appealing to our host congregation for help with major transportation problems. At that time we had several people in our little group who couldn't drive, and we wanted to take the 2-3 hour burden off our pastor, who was picking them up.
After the usual announcements, newsletter blurbs, etc. a woman came up to me and said baldly: "I think God is calling me to drive some of your people." Before I could start to thank her, or God, she went on: "I don't know if I'm going to do it, though. I think probably not."
It was like a punch to the gut. I mean, what do you say when someone blandly announces that they believe they hear God's voice and they intend to blow it off?
I mean, seriously? Couldn't she work up a good fit of denial ("la la la LA, Lord, I can't hear you" or the like)? Let alone coming and telling me about it. Like, why?
That's somebody who needs the most basic steps in discipleship. As we teach little children: "I must do as I am told" and all that.
It would be different if she didn't think it was God calling. But she did. And still blew him off.
My flabber was ghasted.
Another was a pastor of our host congregation (we have more than one) whom, I'm ashamed to say, I overheard having a heated argument with a disabled elderly man about where to stash his walker. Like, within earshot of 50 other people at the church coffee hour. And the issue was seriously minor.
I'm ashamed to say I didn't get involved. I justify this by saying that the man was well able to handle the pastor by himself (and he was--probably the one person in the congregation who could take him on), but still, I should have said something. I think discipleship comes in here, too. He failed, but I did too.
Those are the kind of daily discipleship issues that bug me and make me wonder how to do better.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
This is true of any voluntary activity, not just Church.
You get the deeply committed few, the regular attenders and the people who are 'on the fringe'.
It's a pretty normal and human state of affairs imo.
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Schroedinger's cat
Ship's cool cat
# 64
|
Posted
Discipleship is based on the word discipline - for better or worse. While the church likes to take the role of discipline-master, that is not what is really meant by it.
It is about ways to make us as individuals more disciplined to be faithful Christians. It is like the training an athlete undertakes. And in athletics, there are levels, from professional elite athletes to fun runners, club member. They all need to do training, to various levels, to achieve what they can. They all need to discipline themselves to be sportspeople.
The thing is, discipleship need to come from the individual. Providing opportunities for assistance, for help, is all valid, but telling people what they "should" do always raises my hackles. What is more, it is not about outward signs of "fervour", it is about whether we will put in the training to be better.
Every sportsperson will train, to an extent, but not all will spend weeks at elite training camps, train from early every morning etc.
Discipleship is so often used as a "you must do this to be a proper Christian" rather than "take those opportunities that you can benefit from".
--------------------
Blog
Music for your enjoyment
Lord may all my hard times be healing times
take out this broken heart and renew my mind.
Posts: 18859 | From: At the bottom of a deep dark well. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
I like SC's view.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
Aren't the original 12 reasonable enough models of what a disciple is likely to be like, including one who went wrong, one who denied Jesus, and several who repeatedly got the wrong end of the stick and bickered about who was to have the best place?
And on looking down our noses at other Christians who, we think, don't come up to scratch, what about this version of Rom 14:14 taken from the WEB bible to avoid copyright problems?
quote:
Who are you who judge another’s servant? To his own lord he stands or falls. Yes, he will be made to stand, for God has power to make him stand.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Schroedinger's cat
Ship's cool cat
# 64
|
Posted
Also, re-reading the start of the OP, I think there is a subtle distinction between "Go and make disciples" and "be a disciple".
To continue the athletic analogy, the command here is to support and enthuse others about athletics, encourage others to be involved, and, one hopes, find and support another elite athlete. While supporting everyone at whatever stage they are at.
But the command to Christians is not "you must be a better disciple", but "you should go to encourage others". So the church has no place telling people they should be better disciples (however you define that). If the church is not full of disciples, that is the the fault of the church leadership not the people.
--------------------
Blog
Music for your enjoyment
Lord may all my hard times be healing times
take out this broken heart and renew my mind.
Posts: 18859 | From: At the bottom of a deep dark well. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pooks
Shipmate
# 11425
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Why is it that those who talk so much about discipleship seem to think that everyone has to be as radical as them and if they're not, their discipleship is deficient?
Begs the question whether they are making disciples to be the image of Christ or of themselves, doesn't it?
Posts: 1547 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I think it's axiomatic that people from any Christian tradition or 'style' of being Christian - are going to expect others to become 'like them' ...
This applies as much to full-on fervent enthusiasts as it does to 'contemplatives', liberals or all stations in between.
The key, though, it seems to me, is recognising discipleship within the conditions and constraints/opportunities that appertain in each case.
I've often mentioned my Great Aunt Nell - who suffered from severe cerebral palsy and spent much of her life confined to a couch in the parlour, tended by her devoted sisters.
She couldn't even get to church but the vicar brought her communion every week - something he found incredibly humbling and deeply moving. I wasn't able to get to the funeral but my mum said that the vicar was clearly as affected as the relatives and everyone else.
I have no doubt that Great Aunt Nell was a 'disciple'. She never attended a prayer meeting, a Bible study nor any kind of rah-rah-rah full-on service of any kind. Yet she oozed love and despite her often - frankly - quite scary appearance - had an inner beauty and vitality about her.
![[Votive]](graemlins/votive.gif)
The quality of our discipleship comes out when the chips are down - during times of struggle, bereavement, disappointment, loss ...
I'm sure we can think of all kinds of people who have shown faith, grit and even glory in the face of such things.
So, I'm with Mudfrog's main point.
However, how that might all manifest itself and work itself out 'on the ground' as it were - is going to vary according to a whole range of factors - churchmanship, worship styles and preferences, tradition, culture etc etc.
All of that is secondary to a certain extent - the core issues of the 'fruit of the Spirit' and son on are going to 'look' pretty much the same wherever we are - be it a Salvation Army Citadel, a Brethren Assembly, a cathedral, oratory or whatever else.
--------------------
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
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
Discipleship is based on the word discipline - for better or worse.
Yes, and I think your athlete analogy is excellent.
It's worth remembering, too, that the Greek word used in the NT, which comes to us via Latin as "disciple," means "student" or "apprentice."
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Aren't the original 12 reasonable enough models of what a disciple is likely to be like, including one who went wrong, one who denied Jesus, and several who repeatedly got the wrong end of the stick and bickered about who was to have the best place?
But the 12 were also apostles—"messengers." There were lots of other original disciples who were not apostles. I wonder if some of the confusion about what it means to be a disciple comes from treating disciple and apostle as meaning the same thing.
However as models of imperfection go, your point is well taken.
--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott
Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Why is it that those who talk so much about discipleship seem to think that everyone has to be as radical as them and if they're not, their discipleship is deficient?
I imagine that Christian 'radicalism' needs to be constantly replenished and revitalised, which means radicals always have to be promoting their case. Only a minority of listeners will ever respond to their call, but enough to keep the work going, if the radicals are lucky.
This shouldn't be a problem in the West, since there are many moderate churches and congregations where radicalism makes little appearance, so Christians here who want to avoid this kind of badgering can probably do so fairly easily.
On the other hand, it must be hard for evangelicals to strike a balance, since their churches usually start life by expecting high levels of engagement with their particular biblically-inspired vision. As their intensity wanes over time, this means they're moving closer to the moderate end of things. The radicalism will simply be reborn somewhere else if their own church or denomination can't contain what's left of it.
[ 07. June 2015, 13:17: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
Maybe it's the tradition I was brought up in but I tend to think of discipleship in terms of direction of travel rather than current position. It's not a question of whether you're doing x, y and z but whether you are becoming more like Christ, regardless of how close or far you might currently be. Using the student analogy, the good student is the one who makes progress in learning, not the one who knows it all already.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Schroedinger's cat
Ship's cool cat
# 64
|
Posted
A lot of churches - especially, but not exclusively, evangelical - like ticking boxes. Have you been on this course: tick. Have you had this experience: tick. Have you read this author: tick. Problematically, it is also about Do you subscribe to this doctrine: tick. Have you rejected this idea :tick.
Discipleship is seen as getting as many boxes ticked, because, as with so many box-ticking exercises, other places have experienced improved perception of spirituality by having these experiences, having this form of faith.
the problem is, if I am building a car, I want to be sure that all of the boxes are properly ticked, because I want every car to be the same. But people - and faith - is not like that. It may be that experience x was excellent for someone else, but that doesn't mean it is something that I should experience, or something that would be good for me. It may be that Y was damaging for you, but it might be positive for me.
--------------------
Blog
Music for your enjoyment
Lord may all my hard times be healing times
take out this broken heart and renew my mind.
Posts: 18859 | From: At the bottom of a deep dark well. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Yes - to SvitlanaV2's points ... if you look at Pentecostalism, for instance, you can trace cycles of intensity and relaxation (for want of a better word) ... and most Pentecostal groups or denominations will have had several of these cycles in their history. It's the same for most 'enthusiastic' movements.
I'd imagine one of the original intentions of the annual Methodist Covenant Service, for instance, was a kind of spiritual MOT or health-check ... and a kind of re-envisioning to ensure things stayed 'on track' ...
I suppose one can trace a similar impetus within Roman Catholicism - however packaged differently. So you get a sense of the 'overlapping' emergence of religious orders - Cistercians, Carthusians, Carmelites etc - all of whom are seen to carry some kind of 'charism' or emphasis and all of which are seen to need renewing every now and then ... and even to have a 'shelf-life' rather like supermarket products or groceries ... although I wouldn't be so crass as to draw that analogy too closely.
--------------------
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
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Apologies for double-posting ... but I've remembered an interesting observation Mudfrog made a while ago that might have some bearing in this context.
He recounted how an RC priest had observed to him that the Salvation Army would make a good 'Roman Catholic order'.
The parallels are there.
RC orders tend to derive from a charismatic leader or figure that 'disciples' seek to emulate - be it St Francis of Assissi, St Clare, the now defunct Ghilbertines following St Ghilbert ...
Obviously, there are those which aren't centred on an individual - the Carmelites for instance, the only order to be named after a place.
So, the Salvation Army will seek to live out and express the principles of its founder - William Booth - in a similar way to how RC religious orders seek to express and live out the values of their founders - Bernard of Clairvaux, St Augustine or whoever else.
So - if one is of an 'enthusiastic' bent in terms of spirituality then it's axiomatic that one might want to reproduce those tendencies within others - within one's 'spiritual children' as it were.
That's fine, provided there's room to recognise that our 'children' - both natural and spiritual as it were - are going to become individuals in their own right and not clones of ourselves.
--------------------
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
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
Can we please not have included: zealots, people who ask if I know their Jesus, and people who have fire in their eyes? Also anyone who makes intolerant claims to exclusivity of their views, anyone who mentions hell? And definitely any one who knows the words to Shine Jesus Shine and sings them earnestly.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
If I am building a car, I want to be sure that all of the boxes are properly ticked, because I want every car to be the same. But people - and faith - is not like that. It may be that experience x was excellent for someone else, but that doesn't mean it is something that I should experience, or something that would be good for me. It may be that Y was damaging for you, but it might be positive for me.
It must be quite hard, though, to create one church that caters to all of these potentially conflicting needs.
The obvious way to do it is to have different churches for different kinds of people. Unfortunately, many moderate Christians find this sort of division distasteful among believers, although it's tolerated in Fresh Expressions efforts as a way of getting outsiders into the orbit of the church.
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I've remembered an interesting observation Mudfrog made a while ago that might have some bearing in this context.
He recounted how an RC priest had observed to him that the Salvation Army would make a good 'Roman Catholic order'.
The parallels are there.
RC orders tend to derive from a charismatic leader or figure that 'disciples' seek to emulate - be it St Francis of Assissi, St Clare, the now defunct Ghilbertines following St Ghilbert ...
Obviously, there are those which aren't centred on an individual - the Carmelites for instance, the only order to be named after a place.
So, the Salvation Army will seek to live out and express the principles of its founder - William Booth - in a similar way to how RC religious orders seek to express and live out the values of their founders - Bernard of Clairvaux, St Augustine or whoever else.
The ancient religious orders in the RCC and the CofE are taken for granted now, and their 'radicalism' no longer seems troublesome, on the whole. In a similar vein I can envisage how (in our highly secularised future) a small established denomination might merge with a bigger one and be happily re-invented under this label; it's even been suggested that the Methodist Church become an order within the CofE. But it's hard to see how any newly created group of serious 'radicals' in an established mainstream Protestant denomination could avoid criticism for being cliquey and exclusive. Even the RCC has historically had issues with some of its religious orders and their (alleged) insubordination.
The point is that allowing for 'religious orders', or any kind of sub-group that claims special duties and rules for its members, in a settled denomination is no guarantee of official approval or control. I think this acceptance only occurs, in many cases, when the subgroup has become (or already is) familiar and manageable to the denominational leadership.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Well, the religious orders within the Anglican church are hardly 'ancient' - there weren't Anglican religious orders until the 1870s from what I can gather ... but I take your point, SvitlanaV2 - and it's a rather different one from the one I'm trying to make.
I'm simply drawing parallels ... that any group - be it an RC religious order, a Protestant denomination or some kind of parachurch organisation like a mission-agency - tends to have a model for expected actions or behaviour that it tries to pass on to those to whom it hands the torch ...
So, to take the Salvation Army as an example, though it is undoubtedly operating in a very different way to how William Booth did in Victorian Britain, there will be aspects of its mission that remain 'true' or congruent with his original vision and intention.
It's got Booth in its spiritual DNA, as it were.
That doesn't mean that the contemporary Salvation Army will always necessarily agree with Booth's modus operandi in terms of fine detail - but in terms of principles and the broad thrust of what he 'was about' as it were - that will still be finding expression in some way in how the Army operates and the kind of work it does.
Equally, with Methodism, you can still discern the Wesleyan influence there, of course, however much Methodism has changed since the 18th century. There is a distinctly 'Wesleyan' form of spirituality that is broader than the denominations or movements that bear that name ... and I've heard it suggested that this spirituality or ethos will almost certainly continue in some form even if Methodist, as a formally constituted denomination, were to disappear.
We are all meant to be disciples of Christ. Hopefully, that will lead us to become more 'Christ-like' -- however, we are none of us living in the 1st century so however our attempts to follow Christ are expressed they are bound to imbibe the flavour and character of whoever it was or whatever tradition it was that mediated the faith to us ...
So, you are a disciple of Christ in the context of the Wesleyan tradition - as is Mudfrog, albeit in a different way, perhaps.
Equally, the RC posters here are disciples of Christ in that context, the Baptist posters the same in their context, the Anglicans in theirs, Lutherans in theirs and so on ...
If any of those traditions contain the 'zealots', people who mention hell or who sing the words of 'Shine Jesus shine' with conviction - then I'm afraid that's how it is ... we can't stop people from believing or behaving like that simply because we might not like it ourselves.
What Mudfrog is saying, if I understand him correctly - and I think I do - is that our discipleship is a more 'tailored' thing than some of the more fervent, radical or zealous among us might realise ... and how it works out in practice isn't always going to look the same.
I wasn't making a point about denominational flavours and politics particularly -- although that certainly comes into it - nor was I projecting anything forward in terms of how these things might work out in a more secularised future.
--------------------
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
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
You've reminded me of the hymn 'A New Commandment', which of course refers to John 13:5 - 'By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.’
It should be self-evident that all professed Christians are disciples of Christ, but perhaps this needs to be made more explicit in our preaching and teaching. I don't know if I've ever heard a sermon or attended a Bible study in which the concept of the 'disciple' was explored. Yet ordinary Christians should presumably be very clear about their own right to discipleship when faced with the disapproval of Christian 'radicals' - or with followers of other religions when they claim that Christians in general are not very devout, and that 'true' religious discipleship is modelled far better in their religion.
[ 08. June 2015, 22:20: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
It depends on the circles you've moved in. I've heard plenty of preaching and teaching on this issue and most of it runs along the lines that Mudfrog describes in the OP.
I'd suggest there's a need for more balanced preaching and teaching on it in some quarters - as well as some actual preaching and teaching in others..
--------------------
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
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
I agree. I preached a sermon in my own church on Sunday which did take the "more radical discipleship" approach to which Mudfrog alludes, as I felt it was right to do so. As it happens, I'm preaching "away" next Sunday as we have a local "pulpit exchange", however I am not even considering a repeat of the sermon as the church is very different.
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
My teen brought up an interesting point when discussing this topic over breakfast.
Lazarus, Mary and Martha were apparently good friends of Jesus to the extent that he travelled a long way to visit them. The town of al-Eizariya is (if the tradition is correct) the site of the ancient Bethany, it is in the West Bank near Jerusalem, some way from Jesus' normal stomping ground around Galilee.
They were not of the 3 or the 12, so where they of the 60, 72, 120, 500 or the multitude?
Assuming that they were probably not of the group which followed in the Nazareth/Galilee, they might have been around the group of Christians depicted after the resurrection and in Acts - although they don't seem to be mentioned (IIRC).
So, my teen says, how come demands were made on fishermen and tax-collectors to become deeply engaged with the ministry around the lake (to the extent of leaving their jobs and families) whereas L M and M were able to get on with their lives? Was it that Lazarus and co had important things to be doing that they couldn't leave to become disciples up-country (which seems unlikely, given the "whoever does not leave x y and z cannot be my disciple" quotes in the gospels..)
If there were people who were important disciples in the wider sense without having the kinds of daily engagement of the 3 or the 12, what does this say about the way we talk today?
I don't know much about the Sally Army, but there are often 'official' and 'unofficial' cliques of people within churches. Even leading aside the clergy/laity divide, there are always core groups who seem to see themselves as the really committed people and those who are on the edges who are, let's be honest, usually ignored.
In a sense, this is a bit academic because we don't know how committed Lazarus Mary and Martha were, and yet they occupy an important part in the story. I'm also fascinated by how often Jesus seems to elevate those with little faith, with little obvious commitment, who are not following, not hanging on every word of his sermons - sometimes he seems to scorn not only the religious people of his times, but even his own core disciples in favour of these.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Can we please not have included: zealots, people who ask if I know their Jesus, and people who have fire in their eyes? Also anyone who makes intolerant claims to exclusivity of their views, anyone who mentions hell? And definitely any one who knows the words to Shine Jesus Shine and sings them earnestly.
I'm afraid we're stuck with them. We don't choose who Jesus gives us as our brothers and sisters in him, any more than we don't choose who our biological brothers and sisters are. Nor does he love us and people like us more than he does them. And remember, they are probably looking at us and saying they'd rather not have us included.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
It depends on the circles you've moved in. I've heard plenty of preaching and teaching on this issue and most of it runs along the lines that Mudfrog describes in the OP.
I'd suggest there's a need for more balanced preaching and teaching on it in some quarters - as well as some actual preaching and teaching in others..
I suppose the evangelicals preach about it - but they're the ones who propose that we all have to be 'radical', which is the problem highlighted in the OP.
It also seems from this thread (and from the Ship in general) that evangelical churches are no longer attended by a majority of members who want to be radical, so there may be a mismatch between what's being preached from the pulpits and how the people in the pews want to live. Maybe it takes a while for the preaching/teaching in such churches to catch up with where congregations seem to be going.
On reflection, I think the more moderate churches are probably starting to get into discussions about discipleship, especially as a way of getting members to give more of themselves to the church.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Yes - I think there's a two-way thing going on ...
My feeling is that a lot of the more full-on evangelical outfits are realising that there's a lot more to life than prayer meetings and Bible study and that how people act the rest of the time they're not in church is just as - if not more - important ...
Meanwhile, the more MoR outfits are trying to up the ante on commitment levels and expectations from members ...
--------------------
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
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
quote:
how people act the rest of the time they're not in church is just as - if not more - important .
Oh God yes! This is far, far more important. I'm reminded of the comedian Mike McDonald's statement about 'people protesting <insert social or religious issue here>, stepping on homeless people as they try to get close enough to punch it up with people on the other side.'
Makes me consider whether religious people are more dishonest and hypocritical than the non-religious in general.
[ 09. June 2015, 16:02: Message edited by: no prophet's flag is set so... ]
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
The stakes might be higher in terms of expectations, but overall I'd say that we're all equally hypocritical.
As in the story of the vicar who when confronted by a parishioner who never darkens the door of his church on the grounds that all religious people and church-goers are 'hypocrites' replied, 'Plenty of room for one more!'
We are all sinners in need of grace. That doesn't let us off the hook, of course, but people are people whether they are religious or otherwise ...
--------------------
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
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
Interestingly, I thought the 'old-time evangelicals' was supposed to be folk who passionately walked and talked the gospel all the time, not just at church meetings. That's how they attracted people and made converts.
The more inward-looking approach must be a sign that some groups of Christians have moved past the 'radical' stage and no longer expect to make much of an impact on the world. Some would say this is pretty realistic of them, to be fair. After all, evangelicals are often criticised here when their expectations of transforming their societies are too high.
Social engagement and outreach of various types seems to be the norm in most kinds of churches now, though. Raising funds for charity, hosting day centres for the elderly, etc., seem to be uncontroversial forms of corporate discipleship. One hopes this kind of thing encourages individual Christians to be more caring and socially engaged in their daily lives.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
I think the problem here is that "Evangelical" is such an elastic term that it doesn't make any sense to talk about it in these terms. In the Wesleyan/Holiness tradition and other associated traditions I think there was an emphasis on integrity and steadfastness. But then these often developed in a different time - for example, I've been researching about the various seamen's missions. These men were rough, had a reputation for low moral and alcoholism, and tended to die young. So the missions that worked with them under the Bethel flag tended to emphasise teetotalism and changed behaviour.
In the Calvinist evangelical tradition was different again, I think largely due to a different type of core constituency of members.
Today - with the notable exception of the Sally Army (maybe? I'm not sure) - Evangelicals of all stripes tend to have moved on from any kind of emphasis on the things that are disparagingly called the "social gospel" and so the emphasis tends to be onto particularly churchy things. Piety becomes about turning up to meetings and saying the right things rather than a life change from being a womanising drunk sailor.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
That was the ideal - in reality, though, many evangelical churches filled their members' time with an almost endless round of meetings.
What tended to attract the converts was the depth and quality of the sense of community this created - that's a strength and weakness at one and the same time.
--------------------
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
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Today - with the notable exception of the Sally Army (maybe? I'm not sure) - Evangelicals of all stripes tend to have moved on from any kind of emphasis on the things that are disparagingly called the "social gospel" and so the emphasis tends to be onto particularly churchy things. Piety becomes about turning up to meetings and saying the right things rather than a life change from being a womanising drunk sailor.
Why do you think this is? I'm assuming that indigenous British evangelicalism is doing well mostly in middle class suburbs and small towns where the work of evangelising and social engagement is more straightforward. Working class communities are much harder territory for evangelists today.
However, my own experience of an inner city Churches Together network is that the evangelical churches there are trying hard to engage with the community on a social level. The biggest church, which is Baptist, does all sorts of things, including having founded a charity for young people's vocational training that's now successfully independent. The minister is a self-professed evangelical.
The black British Pentecostal churches have been criticised by their theologians in the past for not engaging sufficiently in trying to transform the social conditions for their members and communities. However, many of them have been involved in social ventures for a long time now. What they may lack is the 'justice' aspect, i.e. trying to tackle the politico-ideological basis underlying inequality. But to be fair to them, I don't really think the average MOTR congregation goes that deeply into things either. Fair Trade did well, but ISTM that most serious political commentary and engagement is generated from the top, or by individuals just doing their own thing....
Let's be honest. Left-wing political activism seems past its finest hour in modern Britain. The mainstream churches like to talk up social justice, but I don't know where it's getting us at the moment. It might be better for churches of all stripes to focus on the work of serving local communities in simple ways.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
Well, again, the problem is with definitions. Who or what is an "evangelical" anyway?
On the Baptist Union - with the proviso that this is just an observation, others have much more knowledge from the inside - it seems to me that the emphasis has been on consolidation in recent decades, leaving some very large and very wealthy congregations, and lots of building projects.
I think the essential nature of Baptist Churches (which are basically Congregational with fairly weak influence by the centre) is that they organise themselves. And this, I think leads to the development of local action projects.
The downside of this is that part of the Baptist way seems to be to employ someone else to do it. In my experience, ordinary members of the congregations are not very involved in the projects on a day-to-day level. I therefore do not think that having lots of social action projects leads to the kind of day-to-day discipleship discussed above in Baptist Union churches.
The one swing in engagement has been in Food Banks, but these a) are not wholly staffed by evangelicals and b) are of the "church rota" style, so tend to involve fairly small amounts of commitment from a lot of people. Also Street Pastors which tend to be more associated with evangelicals and involve more commitment. These types of Congregational activity maybe act against the comments I've made above.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I think all that is the case, SvitlanaV2 - and would echo Mr Cheesy's comments about the Baptist Union too - although I can think of examples of initiatives where people are heavily involved with social action and not simply agreeing to fund someone else to do it on their behalf ...
But the overall impression and analysis is correct, I think.
I hate to say that the churches, in small, undemonstrative ways, may end up doing Cameron's 'Big Society' for him as the Tory juggernaut rolls over the NHS and other services ...
But to an extent, that may well be happening.
--------------------
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
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Part of the Baptist way seems to be to employ someone else to do it. In my experience, ordinary members of the congregations are not very involved in the projects on a day-to-day level. I therefore do not think that having lots of social action projects leads to the kind of day-to-day discipleship discussed above in Baptist Union churches.
Honestly, though, most church projects do rely on small groups of people. That's my experience of MOTR Methodists and CofE congregations, both of which are also quite willing to employ outsiders to lead projects for them - if they can afford it.
You'll also find that MOTR churches often let out rooms to various 'caring' organisations (mothers' and toddlers' groups, Weightwatchers, Woodcraft Folk, youth clubs, etc.) and see the presence of these groups as part of the churches' service to the community, even though the groups are run, organised and funded separately from the church, and staffed by non-churchgoers.
You might say this attitude is cheating, a disingenuous form of self-promotion. But some churchgoers would respond that anything good that a church enables and encourages on its premises gives the community a positive view of the church, and is hence a form of communal discipleship. This rather MOTR view obviously attempts to make a virtue out of necessity, the necessity of renting out a church building as a way of increasing income.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
It isn't just MOTR churches that do that - I know plenty of evangelical churches that hire out part of their premises or their church halls and what-have-you.
Whilst they do see such things as part of their 'service to the community', most of them combine that with a pragmatic view - it helps with costs.
I've yet to meet anyone, from whatever tradition or 'churchmanship' who over-spiritualises things like that or sees in purely spiritual or 'discipleship' terms.
--------------------
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
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Honestly, though, most church projects do rely on small groups of people. That's my experience of MOTR Methodists and CofE congregations, both of which are also quite willing to employ outsiders to lead projects for them - if they can afford it.
Agreed, but I was answering your specific point about
quote:
'old-time evangelicals' was supposed to be folk who passionately walked and talked the gospel all the time, not just at church meetings
I think there are MOTR churches which are similar (but you didn't ask about those!), but the dynamic in the recent Methodist tradition is subtly different in my opinion. Methodist were much quicker to accept that worship spaces needed to diversify into many different non-church activities and were much quicker to engage with others in LEPs. Many/most Baptist Union churches have historically had a phobia about trading (in particular) in the church building, so have been much slower about changing the space into multi-use. Some of the wealthier Baptist Union churches have recently invested in building projects which the aim of producing spaces which can be used for more things, but one of the legacies of the enormous cavernous city centre Baptist churches is that those who have hung onto them have buildings which are not easily adapted to functions outside of traditional worship.
Again, that has also happened with the Methodists, but they seem to have models of large city centre multi-space buildings (often renovated in the 1980s-1990s) and suburban and/or rural spaces which are in decline. Some of this latter group have become URC/Methodist LEPs, but I'd say that they usually do not have the funds for complete renovation of the buildings.
Anglicans and CoS have different issues - although interestingly the Church of Scotland seems to have been less squeamish about disposing of unused and unusable buildings than the CofE.
Sorry.. I've lost the thread of what I was talking about..
quote:
You'll also find that MOTR churches often let out rooms to various 'caring' organisations (mothers' and toddlers' groups, Weightwatchers, Woodcraft Folk, youth clubs, etc.) and see the presence of these groups as part of the churches' service to the community, even though the groups are run, organised and funded separately from the church, and staffed by non-churchgoers.
I agree with this. Not sure how it is relevant to the point you were making about evangelicals, though.
quote:
You might say this attitude is cheating, a disingenuous form of self-promotion. But some churchgoers would respond that anything good that a church enables and encourages on its premises gives the community a positive view of the church, and is hence a form of communal discipleship. This rather MOTR view obviously attempts to make a virtue out of necessity, the necessity of renting out a church building as a way of increasing income.
Oh no, I wouldn't say it is cheating. As far as I'm concerned, religious groups who fund themselves by offering services to people who are prepared to pay for them are more honest than those who ask for donations from people at the margins.
[ 10. June 2015, 12:47: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
my cheesy
I wouldn't disagree with what you've said here. My point was simply to even things out a bit! Churches of whatever flavour may end up relying on a handful of members, or on outsiders, to help boost their socially committed credentials.
Your references to the Baptists emphasise for me that our theology about discipleship (among other things) is likely to be deeply influenced by our circumstances. LEPs are entered into because of church decline, but can be presented as examples of Christian unity, and hence Christian discipleship. Where LEPs are unusual or unnecessary for practical reasons such a theological focus is unlikely.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
