The Correctives of Intentional Discipleship (2)

By Ken Brown | May 11, 2022

Too often the discipleship that takes place in our churches comes only by osmosis – if one hangs around long enough she will catch on to the Bible’s story, important doctrines of the faith, and tenets of Christian living.  This series has advocated that our discipleship be intentional (see here) and has suggested that a successful discipleship program must be focused, universal, and church-based, thereby addressing several issues with which churches often struggle.  Last week’s installment (see here) examined the obstacles that are overcome by a focused process: Because it focuses the ministries of the church on one overall objective, making disciples, it forces it to deal with troublesome matters like fragmentation and traditionalism.  This article will document the advantages of having a universal process (engaging the entire congregation deals with the problem of AWOL members who assume discipleship is for other people) and one that is church-based (it restores the church to its rightful place as indispensable to the disciple-making task).

Assimilation

A major challenge for church leadership is how best to move people from visiting to belonging, from guest to family member in the church.  Much has been written about how to move people to the next step so that they are drawn deeper into the life of the church and, presumably, further growth.  Some have used the analogy of a home with its foyer, kitchen, and living room to illustrate the process of gradually moving someone from guest to friend to family, respectively.1 I have compared the process of deeper involvement to relocation to a new neighborhood where people progressively move in as neighbors, settle in as friends, and finally fit in like family.

An effective assimilation strategy will consider the experience of the unbeliever from the moment an invitation is extended to the time they arrive at the gathering and will take care regarding the content and manner with which information is provided, the presentation of the Gospel and opportunities to be exposed to it, and clearly outline next steps for involvement.

Participation

Some compare the church to a football game where eleven men who desperately need rest are watched by 50,000 who desperately need exercise.  The Pew Research Center found active church involvement to be quite low for evangelical groups while Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses easily outperform them.  The survey found that 67 percent of Mormons are involved, and 64 percent of Jehovah’s Witnesses have a high level of involvement compared to 44 percent for Southern Baptists and 32 percent from members of the Presbyterian Church in America.2 The survey determined involvement based on three factors: membership in a congregation, frequency of attendance at worship services, and frequency of attendance at small group religious activities.  These measures, it is reasonable to assume, would yield higher numbers than actual service in the church.

We do not expect spectators to serve, but all Christians in Christ’s church should be serving.  After all, the Lord gave gifts to every believer to serve in his work.  Ephesians 4:16 says the church “grows and builds itself up in love, as each part does its work.”  An intentional and universal discipleship program that includes service as part of the process aids greatly in solving the non-participation problem.

Ecclesiology

One challenge for local church discipleship is the pervasive outsourcing of ministry from the church to parachurch organizations.  While many of these organizations do gospel work, biblically they are not a replacement for, nor as important as, the local church.  The centrality of the local assembly has met with great resistance in our day.  While we could cite many reasons, certainly the individualism that characterizes our culture is one factor.  A recent survey found that 65 percent of Protestant churchgoers say they can walk with God without other believers.3  Picking up on Bellah’s illustration, Briscoe observes, “Surveys in America show that 80 percent of Americans believe in God, but when you look carefully into the ‘god’ whom they believe, you find ‘Sheilaism.’  Many Americans claim to believe in God, but in actual fact they are really listening to a little voice inside themselves.”4

The local church is often viewed, even by Christians, as but one of many options for the spiritual growth of believers.  For instance, in his book Exit Interviews, William Hendricks estimated that “53,000 people leave churches every week and never come back!5 He calls these “back-door believers”6 and says they have “become quite resourceful at finding ways to meet God apart from a local church.”7 Those leaving the church behind believe they have found a “better way,”8 and they describe “themselves as moving closer to God but further away from the church!”9

Some tend to minimize the central role of the local church in Scripture.  Reisinger argues, “The ekklesia is the spiritual body of Christ and it cannot possibly have anything to do with a physical organization … The words ‘called out ones’ cannot possibly have anything at all to do with the physical organization or assembling of that which we today call a ‘church.’ The spiritual experience of effectual calling (kaleo) creates, in and of itself, the ekklesia of Christ, and since that effectual calling (kaleo) is totally spiritual it follows that the thing created by that calling, the ekklesia, must also be spiritual and not physical.”10

Others have expressly stated their belief that the local church has no role to play in the Great Commission.  While they see that each individual believer is to be engaged in mission, such mission has no connection with the corporate body.  Note the words of C. I. Scofield (editor of the famous Scofield Reference Bible) and Lewis Sperry Chafer (founder of Dallas Theological Seminary).  Scofield claimed,

The visible church, as such is charged with no mission.  The Commission to evangelize the world is personal, and not corporate … So far as the Scripture goes, the work of evangelization was done by individuals called directly by the Spirit to that work. ((Comprehensive Bible Correspondence Course (Chicago: Moody Bible Institute, 1960) 3.341, quoted in Michael Williams, “Where’s the Church? Some Unfinished Business in Dispensationalism,” Grace Theological Journal 10, no. 2 (Fall 1989): 175–176.))

And Chafer said,

No responsibility or service is imposed on the church per se.  Service, like the gifts of the Spirit by whom service is wrought, is individual. It could not be otherwise.  The common phrase, “the church’s task,” is, therefore, without biblical foundation.  It is only when individuals sense their personal responsibility and claim personal divine enablement that Christian work is done.11

The influence of these men on American Evangelicalism is enormous.  Coupled with the individualism of our secular culture, the result has been a Lone Ranger mentality that sees the church as unnecessary.  It is easy to see how churches can lose a sense of corporate responsibility for the Great Commission.  Returning the discipling enterprise to the local church is a powerful corrective to such errant ecclesiology and will be the subject of next blog.

Ken Brown is the pastor of Community Bible Church in Trenton, MI. We republish his article by permission.

Photo by Hannah Busing on Unsplash

  1. Wesley Fryer, “From Foyer to Kitchen by Andy Stanley,” Pocket Share Jesus (blog), November 15, 2014, accessed August 3, 2021. [↩]
  2. Aleksandra Sandstrom, “Church Involvement Varies Widely Among U.S. Christians,” Pew Research Center, accessed August 3, 2021. [↩]
  3. Aaron Earls, “20 Vital Stats for Ministry in 2020,” Lifeway Research, accessed August 3, 2021.) In sociologist Robert Bellah’s book Habits of the Heart, he found the view of one woman, Sheila, to be representative of the attitudes of many Americans.  She describes her faith this way: “I believe in God.  I’m not a religious fanatic.  I can’t remember the last time I went to church. My faith has carried me a long way.  It’s Sheilaism.  Just my own little voice.” ((Robert N. Bellah, Habits of the Heart: Individualism and Commitment in American Life (New York; Harper & Row, 1985), 221. [↩]
  4. Stuart Briscoe, The Apostles’ Creed: Beliefs that Matter (Wheaton, IL: Harold Shaw Publishers, 1994), 1–2. [↩]
  5. William Hendricks, Exit Interviews (Chicago: Moody Press, 1993), back cover. [↩]
  6. Ibid., 17. [↩]
  7. Ibid., 295. [↩]
  8. Ibid., 19. [↩]
  9. Ibid., 268. [↩]
  10. John G. Reisinger, The New Covenant Church: Ekklesia of Christ (Frederick, MD: New Covenant Media, 2014), 11–12, Kindle. [↩]
  11. Systematic Theology (Dallas: Dallas Seminary Press, 1947), 4.149. [↩]
Posted in Blog and tagged , ,