|
Disciples are Ministers
Another model of discipleship suggests that a disciple is the believer who has been called out from among lay believers in order to enter into ministry. Discipleship means to be with Jesus in order to learn from Him how to serve the crowd, the church (See Degenhardt 1965; Schelkle 1965; Sheridan 1973:235-255; Minear 1974:28-44; Thysman 1974; Lohfink 1984:31-33; Trakatellis 1985:271-285; Sweetland 1987). Focusing on the distinction between the crowds and the disciples in the gospel of Matthew, one author maintains that because the crowds represent followers of Jesus, His disciples “form a much more limited and specialized group than is usually supposed. They are those chosen and trained as successors to Jesus in His role as exorcist, healer, prophet, and teacher” (Minear 1974:31). Another author has a similar perspective when he says, “Everyone is called to participate in the reign of God, but only some are called to be followers of Jesus...The disciple of Jesus is called to serve other members of the eschatological community (cf. Mk 1:31) and, through the missionary enterprise, those outside the community as well (Sweetland 1987:17, 35). This model results from observing the close relationship of the twelve disciples with Jesus in His ministry, and their later ministry to the early church.[3] It concludes that the radical call to discipleship was intended to be a model of how a believer today is called into ministry. This model of discipleship is also quite widespread, found especially in church traditions that emphasize a hierarchical order within their denominational structure, and usually emphasizes a distinction between the clergy and the laity. This model is also employed quite often by those who point to Jesus’ training of His disciples as examples of how Christian leaders should be trained today (Chandapilla 1974; Drushal 1988:47-62; Eims 1978:61ff, 83ff, 181-188). The same difficulties encountered in the second model apply here, but an additional difficulty is encountered because the twelve disciples are often used as the example. A problem arises when a clear distinction is not made between the Twelve as disciples and the Twelve as apostles. Most scholars agree that the terms “disciple” and “apostle” point to significantly different aspects of the Twelve. When do the Twelve function as disciples and when do they function as apostles? That is a crucial distinction for us to make. Disciples are Converts with Discipleship Following
Others propose that disciples are converts to Jesus, and that discipleship comes later. A disciple is one who has been evangelized, and the later process of growth is called “perfecting” or “discipleship” (McGavran and Arn 1973; Wagner 1974:79). One author says, “Church-growth men use the word ‘discipling’ to mean the initial step by which people come to Christ and become baptized believers. We go on and say that the second part of church growth is ‘perfecting’ or growing in grace” (McGavran and Arn 1973:80). Another leader in the church growth movement similarly declares that a person is not a disciple just because he has been born in a Christian country or in many cases, even if he is a church member...The basic meaning of disciple in the New Testament is equivalent to a true, born-again Christian. . . . Some have confused ‘making disciples’ with ‘discipleship’ (Wagner 1974:79-80; 1973:285-293). Making disciples is the right goal of evangelism and missions according to the Great Commission. Once disciples are made, they then begin the lifetime road of discipleship. This discipleship model emphasizes that the meaning of the Great Commission’s imperative, “make disciples” of all the nations, is to make converts out of non-Christians. It stresses conversion as the beginning point of the Christian life, which means that conversion is the beginning point of becoming a disciple. Further, it recognizes that the term disciple is the most common designation for a “believer” in the Gospels and Acts. The difficulty with this model is that it seems to separate the imperative of the Great Commission, “make disciples,” from the following participles, “baptizing” and “teaching.” The discrepancy may lie in the use of the English terms disciple, discipling, and discipleship. Is it possible to be a disciple without being on the road of discipleship? Is discipling different than discipleship?
Disciples are Converts In the Process of Discipleship
Still others suggest that a disciple is the true believer who enters the life of discipleship at the time of conversion. In this model, as with the prior view, conversion is the beginning point of becoming a disciple. But this model stresses that discipleship is vitally linked to conversion as the natural result. Discipleship is not a second step in the Christian life, but rather is synonymous with the Christian life. At conversion one becomes a disciple of Jesus, and the process of growth as a Christian is called discipleship. For one author, to speak of entrance to the Christian life without recognizing the fact that it also means entrance into the life of discipleship, is to cheapen the grace of God. He says, Cheap grace is grace without discipleship, grace without the cross, grace without Jesus Christ, living and incarnate. . . . Happy are they who know that discipleship means the life which springs from grace, and that grace simply means discipleship. Happy are they who have become Christians in this sense of the word. For them the word of grace has proved a fount of mercy (Bonhoffer 1963:47, 60). Similarly, another author asserts that . . . discipleship is not a supposed second step in Christianity, as if one first becomes a believer in Jesus and then, if he chooses, a disciple. From the beginning, discipleship is involved in what it means to be a Christian” (Boice 1986:16). This model of discipleship emphasizes that as Jesus called men and women to Him, and as He sent His disciples out to make other disciples, He was calling men and women into a saving relationship with himself which would make a difference in the new disciple’s life. Therefore, Jesus’ purpose in the Great Commission included both conversion and growth; i.e., “making disciples” meant that one became a disciple at the moment of conversion and that growth in discipleship was the natural result of the new disciple’s life. As Jesus sent the disciples out to make converts, the demands for discipleship made by Jesus in His teaching were directed not only to His first followers, but to all true believers. This model of discipleship is quite widespread, appearing in several different contexts. This latter model is the most consistent with early Christian usage. It is not without its problems, which I have addressed elsewhere, but once we attempt to overcome those difficulties, the definitions become clearer.
Overcoming Difficulties In Discipleship Studies
Each of these models is represented by sincere men and women of God who are serious about heeding Jesus’ call to discipleship. Each model has correctly accented--at least partially--biblical teaching. Why the different models? Why the problems? These various models have come about as people have attempted to get at the heart of Jesus’ conception of discipleship and then have attempted to apply that conception to present-day ministry. The major problems surface when each model attempts to reconcile seemingly contradictory passages. These problems especially occur in four different contexts: · when reconciling Jesus’ gracious call to discipleship with His stringent demands of discipleship, · when reconciling Jesus’ ministry to the crowds with His ministry to the disciples, · when reconciling general discipleship passages with the role of the Twelve, or · when reconciling the portrait of disciples in the Gospels with their occurrence in the Acts and the non-occurrence of the term “disciple” in the Epistles. The strength of each discipleship model lies in its emphasis upon a particular type of discipleship teaching. The weakness of each discipleship model lies in its de-emphasis of other types of discipleship teachings. Several observations should be kept in mind.
Enter Jesus' First Century World Before Following Him In Ours
Many difficulties can be overcome if we try to understand, first, the dynamics of discipleship as they occurred within the cultural setting of the first century, before we try to apply those dynamics to our own ministries and lives. With each new class studying the gospels I like to perform a fun exercise. I take a few volunteers and ask them to stand on the platform in the large auditorium in which the lecture is held. I inform them that when I was a drill sergeant in the Army one of my responsibilities was to teach the new recruits how to march. “So,” I tell them, “I’m going to teach you how to march through the gospels.” As the volunteers line up, I call out, “Forward, march!” They go a few steps and then, after they stop, I ask them to tell me which foot they started out on. Some say right, some say left, others do not remember! Then I tell them how it is that military people always stay in step with each other: They always start out on the same foot, and that is always the left foot. The application to discipleship study? Basic hermeneutics. When walking through the gospels, we must always start out on the same foot, the left foot. The left foot represents starting with understanding the gospels first from the standpoint of what was happening in the first century as Jesus walked and taught all around Palestine. What did the discipleship saying of Jesus mean to those who first heard it while Jesus was with them? What was Jesus’ intention in His first century setting? Then, after our left foot is solidly planted, we can go to the right foot, which represents applying the passage to our lives today. Once we understand what the discipleship sayings meant to Jesus’ original audience we will be able to take the essential principles and apply them to our own setting. If we start with the right foot, we run the risk of reading our own set of values and circumstances back into the gospels. We must allow the original intention to interpret our own application.[4] Several difficulties found in the above discipleship models result from starting with the right foot! We must be as clear as possible in our understanding of what it meant to follow Jesus in the first century if we are to be clear about what it means to follow Jesus in our modern world. We must start with the left foot!
Identify With the Appropriate Audience
Several difficulties in the discipleship models result from a lack of precision concerning the audiences who heard Jesus’ teachings. Even as preachers and teachers today try to know their audiences so that they can minister to appropriate needs and circumstances, Jesus gave teaching that was appropriate for the spiritual state of His listeners. He gave teaching and offered invitations that were uniquely suited for the particular audience that surrounded Him. For example, in His parabolic discourse Jesus gave parables which had one intention for the crowds (hiding the mysteries of the kingdom) and one intention for the disciples (revealing the mysteries of the kingdom) (cf. Mt 13:1-2, 10-17; Mk 4:1-12). If we do not specify precisely the audience, we will not identify with the audience and teaching that is appropriate for our spiritual state. Overall, discipleship teaching that is directed to the crowds deals with the act of becoming a disciple (evangelism), whereas teaching directed to the disciples deals with growth in discipleship (Christian growth).
Distinguish Between The Twelve As Disciples And The Twelve As Apostles
Throughout the history of the church a certain tension has been felt when looking at the lives of the Twelve. Special comfort has been drawn from recognizing that they are really not that much different than we are. If Jesus could make something of their lives, then He certainly can with ours! Yet, on the other hand, they seem so different than we are. The Twelve were used in the founding of the early church in ways not duplicated. When have we experienced such a ministry? This points to a special difficulty which was observed when the Twelve were used in the above discipleship models: a clear distinction was not always made between the Twelve as disciples and the Twelve as apostles. Although the Twelve were both disciples and apostles, scholars agree that the terms “disciple” and “apostle” point to significantly different aspects. Indeed, while in the gospels the Twelve are usually called disciples, in the book of Acts the Twelve are never called disciples. In Acts they are only called apostles, to emphasize their leadership role in the early church. Therefore, our preliminary observation is that as disciples the Twelve give us an example of how Jesus works with all believers, and as apostles the Twelve give us an example of how Jesus works with leaders of the church.
Acts Helps Interpret Meaning Of Discipleship Terminology
Several difficulties have already been mentioned which are best resolved when we allow the book of Acts to help us interpret the meaning of discipleship terminology. By the time of the early church, as recorded in Acts, the term disciple was synonymous with the true believer in Jesus. Luke speaks of the multitude of “believers” in Acts 4:32 and the multitude or congregation of “disciples,” in Acts 6:2. In Luke’s writings, the expressions “those who believe” and “the disciples” signify the same group of people (cf. Acts. 6:7; 9:26; 11:26; 14:21-22). Acts clarifies for us that the common word for a believer in the early church was disciple. Disciple was also the earliest synonym for Christian (Acts 11:26). Luke also clarifies the use of the terms disciple and apostle with reference to the Twelve. Unlike in his gospel, Luke in Acts never calls the Twelve “disciples.” Since the Twelve are only called apostles in Acts, Luke stresses the distinctive role that the Twelve played as apostles in the early church. In Acts the Twelve are called apostles to accentuate their leadership role, and the common name for a believer is disciple. The book of Acts also helps us see the transitions that took place in discipleship terminology. In the gospels “disciple” is the most common word used to designate the followers of Jesus, but the word does not occur at all in the epistles. Instead, other terms, such as brother/sister, saints, believers, and Christians came to be the prominent terms used to designate followers of Jesus. Although the term disciple does not occur in the epistles, the book of Acts allows us to see that at the same basic historical period as the writing of the epistles the terminology and concept of discipleship flourished.
Disciples in Historical Context
Today the English terms, “disciple,” “discipleship,” and “discipling,” imply different things to different users, depending upon the background of the user and the context of use. This confusion is part of the problem behind the different discipleship models in existence today. We need standardized definitions of these very important terms, or else we will not be talking about the same things. As we define them we must keep in mind three categories of usage: 1) How were the terms used in the general context of the first century world? 2) How were the terms used in the biblical context? and 3) How are the terms used today? Behind our English word “disciple” lie the Latin terms discipulus (masculine) / discipula (feminine) and the Greek words maqhthV (masculine) / maqhtria (feminine). Since these Latin and Greek nouns have a linguistic relationship to verbs for “learn”[5] in their earliest history, they were used to refer to “learners” and “students.” Eventually the meaning broadened so that they were used to refer to “adherents” of a great master. The Greek term especially, by the late Hellenistic period during the time when the NT was written, was used increasingly to refer to an adherent. The type of adherence was determined by the master, but it ranged from being the companion of a philosopher, to being the follower of a great thinker and master of the past, to being the devotee of a religious figure. Therefore, in most common usage, whether in the Roman or Greek world, a “disciple” was a person who was committed to a significant master.[6] To say that a disciple is a learner is true, but this over emphasizes one aspect of the term’s meaning and misses what the term primarily signified in the New Testament era. For example, the disciples of John the Baptist were not primarily learners, since John was not primarily a teacher, but a prophet. A disciple was one who made a life commitment to a particular master and his way of life. The type of “disciple” and the corresponding life of “discipleship” was determined by the type of master, but commitment to the master and his ways was central. Therefore, it is not enough to ask “what is a disciple?” Rather, we must ask, a disciple of whom, and at what period of time? A disciple of Jesus during His earthly ministry was one who made a life commitment to Him. Among those who made an early commitment were some who gave up following Jesus around when His Way proved to be different than what they had expected (cf. Jn 6:60-66). There was also one who finally was proven to be a false disciple (Judas Iscariot). But as Jesus increasingly revealed His messianic identity, those who believed in Him claimed Him as their Savior and God, and those who remained with Him were Jesus’ true disciples. [3]This is the implication of Gerd Theissen’s study, when he distinguishes “wandering charismatics” (the disciples) from the “sympathizers” in the local communities (Theissen 1978:8-23). [4]On the technical side, this reveals my hermeneutical approach, which flies in the face of much contemporary hermeneutics, especially certain literary-critical approaches that deny the reality of authorial intention. [5]Latin, discere; Greek, manqanein. |
|||