DISCIPLING: SOME FINAL THOUGHTS

So, having looked at each of the four base models of discipling, we see that there is good news and bad news with each of them. So much of their innate effectiveness depends on the commitment to intentionality by the congregation, fellowship, or leader choosing a model to practice. No model works if there is not a clear understanding of the WHY behind what is done. That question will deeply influence how discipling is done. For instance, most congregations choose a passive practice of base model 1 (adding members) with no clearly stated vision for doing anything. In assuming that by offering weekly worship, Sunday School, programs, etc., people will drift to them, there is little done to intentionally invite outsiders to join. As newcomers visit, hardly anyone encourages their participation. If someone joins, many congregations simply leave them on their own to find their way. That cannot and does not work. There has to be the intention of seeking visitors, welcoming them, and then engaging them meaningfully in the life of the congregation. Such a process takes time, effort, and people willing to personally engage with someone unknown. The same is true for every single one of these base models. Without that openly stated purpose, no matter what route is chosen, it will be a dead end. 

Furthermore, intentionality includes an agreed upon central core for a community of faith—why do we exist? This goes beyond the old mission statement model borrowed from corporate America (something corporate America abandoned a while ago). Mission statements tend not to be worth the paper they are written on because they easily become so many words nobody much pays attention to. Also, they tend to be so abstract as to be foolish. Instead, answering why do we exist? needs to be a matter of heart. Last century, Paul Tillich advanced the theological idea that every human being centers his or her existence on a central core—the ground of being—that becomes their god/God. Every choice, every decision, every relationship, and every work flows from that central core. Years ago, I came across “the checkbook exercise”—flip through your cancelled checks, and the central core begins to come into view—where are you spending your assets? Priorities come into view. For a church, the same exercise can be fruitful—what are using our money for? where are our people most involved? what feels like what we do best? For a community of Christ, Christ needs to be that core. Fascinatingly, this is not always the case! Yet, Jesus himself spells out the core for any community assuming his name—Go, therefore, and make disciples, baptizing them in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. That is the one, true core. 

Now realize and recognize that there is a tremendous amount of flexibility in how a fellowship of Jesus lives by that core. We are left to reach the world by any means we can imagine, sharing Jesus’ compassion, grace, mercy, and acceptance. By any means I truly believe to be by any means. Look at the examples of folks using any of the four base models of discipling—they are all doing something different, but the core remains absolutely the same—they are seeking to build a community of Jesus that witnesses to his redeeming compassion, transforms the lives of adherents, and transcends the world as it is. There is no one right way of discipling. There is, however, a standard—are the people with whom we interact, whom we engage, and whom we welcome becoming followers of Jesus, able to share that practice with someone else? 

This move means abandoning the more passive state the American church fell into during the last century. Then, the church was an assumed piece of the civic fabric of most communities. Now, that is no longer true. To be vibrant, relevant, and faithful, the church needs to become active. Discipling is an immediate means by which to become active. It is also meets a hunger present in contemporary society for embodied teaching—folks no longer what to be told about something true, important, and life-changing; they want to be shown. They want to see real, actual, and tangible evidence that what is taught makes a difference in the people working, the surrounding community, and the world itself. Too many formerly trusted institutions made promises that proved to be what Mary Poppins named “pie-crust promises—easily made, easily broken.” The church needs to confess that it also made such promises, but now we repent in the truest meaning of the word—we turn around from going one direction and adopt a new direction for our journey together. We commit to engagement with the world to reveal a way of self-emptying compassion that can meet the problems of modernity and transform human lives.

A final note—the base models described here are just that—base models. Churches should feel free to improvise, mixing, blending, adjusting, adapting, or completely reworking the base to fit their communal personality, vision, and ability. That is the beauty of Christ’s commission—any would be disciples can define each piece as fits their own vocation—disciple is a flexible term. Stay true to the core of Jesus and following will flow directly in response.