What is Wrong with Being "Discipled"?

 

"Being" Discipled

 

It’s a common phrase in Christian circles.  We talk of “discipling” someone, “being” discipled, or going where there is a strong emphasis on discipleship.

 

What’s wrong with this picture?

 

More than might meet the eye.

 

If you notice, the language itself puts the entire emphasis on someone, or something, “doing” discipleship “to” someone else.  The one being discipled is seemingly passive.

 

In other words, discipleship is something “received.”

 

But that is not the idea of discipleship in the Bible.  The word “disciple” is from the Greek word “mathetes” and literally means “learner.”

 

Stop there.  Re-read.

 

“Learner.”

 

If I’m not mistaken, that puts the action firmly into the lap of the one doing the learning.  The point is that you, as a disciple, are to be actively learning.  It is your responsibility to take up the mantle of self-development.

 

And yes, this suggests a teacher is involved.

 

And yes, we talk about someone going to college to “receive” an education.

 

And yes, Jesus seemed to fill the teaching/equipping role by inviting twelve men (and more than a few women) to do life with him for three years.

 

And yes, they were called “disciples.”

 

But reflect on those early followers.  Theirs was an invitation to learn, not to enter into a passive process of being fed.  We certainly know that not all of the twelve went to school on Jesus.

 

One in particular didn’t seem to learn much of anything.  If discipleship was simply something “done” to you, Jesus failed epically with Judas.  [I wonder if he ever said he needed to follow another rabbi where he could be better “fed.”]

 

No, growing in faith is something that can be served by others, but ultimately must be owned personally by ourselves.

 

This is decisive.  Too many followers of Christ view discipleship as something that is done to them and for them, akin to a personal enrichment program.  Yet the writer of Hebrews made it abundantly clear that people who keep getting “fed” in this way are in arrested development.  Once out of infancy, they should no longer need to be fed, but instead be feeding others (Hebrews 4:11-13).

 

But even more disquieting is how we have missed out on what it is we should focus on learning.  The back-half of the Great Commission exhorts us to teach new believers to obey what Christ has commanded.

 

And what has Christ commanded?

 

To live out our lives in mission to the least and the lost.

 

In other words, what we are to be “learning” is increased love toward others and increased faith for the task of serving them.  We are not to be in search for a feeding station that creates a culture of dependency and endless demand for head-knowledge, but a learning environment where an active life of faith is stretched and encouraged.

 

I know, knowledge is needed.  Doctrine matters.  We are transformed by the renewing of our minds.  But only when what is in the mind translates into obedience to the widow and orphan, the hell-bound and skeptic.

 

So what would that kind of discipleship entail?  In his book Deep and Wide, Andy Stanley states the practice of many seasoned spiritual leaders in detailing the five primary ways people experience growth in their faith:

 

*practical teaching

 

*private disciplines

 

*personal ministry

 

*providential relationships

 

*pivotal circumstances

 

In other words, faith is stretched by being in the game;

 

…where you are admonished by teachers/leaders, investing in connecting with God through prayer and the Scriptures, putting yourself on the front lines of the cause of Christ, mixing it up with other Christians who sharpen you as iron against iron, and being led by God into unique situations that challenge you at the deepest of spiritual levels.

 

That’s not passive, but active.

 

It’s something that can be served, but never delivered.

 

It takes a church, but only goes so far as the person is willing to be,

 

…a true learner.

 

James Emery White

 

 

Sources

 

Andy Stanley, Deep and Wide.

 

 

Editor’s Note

 

James Emery White is the founding and senior pastor of Mecklenburg Community Church in Charlotte, NC, and the ranked adjunctive professor of theology and culture at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary, which he also served as their fourth president.  His newly released book is The Church in an Age of Crisis: 25 New Realities Facing Christianity (Baker Press).  To enjoy a free subscription to the Church and Culture blog, log-on to www.churchandculture.org, where you can post your comments on this blog, view past blogs in our archive and read the latest church and culture news from around the world.  Follow Dr. White on twitter @JamesEmeryWhite.

Is the God of the Old Testament the same One in the New Testament?

An Eye for an Eye:

Basic Biblical Interpretation for a Skeptical Culture, Part 1 
 

One of the most common cultural objections to the Bible, and specifically to ethical stands based on the Bible’s teachings, is the Old Testament.

 

You bring up Paul’s teachings on, say, homosexuality, and the counter punch is the plethora of laws in Leviticus that advocate stoning for…well, things we don’t usually want to stone people for.

 

The attempted point is that if you are going to buy into the New Testament ethic, you have to buy into the Old Testament ethic.  And since no one wants to buy into the Old Testament ethic – not even Christians – then let’s not be hypocrites.  Drop the cherry-picked New Testament stuff and realize that morals change with the times.

 

Heard this a few times?  Of course you have.  This argument is brought out so frequently, one is led to believe it’s the ultimate slam dunk against Christianity.

 

But is it?

 

The word testament simply means "agreement," or "covenant."  The Old Testament is the covenant God made with men and women about how to be in relationship with Him before Christ came.  The New Testament is the new agreement God made with men and women about how to be in a relationship with God after the coming of Christ.

 

But the New Testament didn't replace the old covenants - it fulfilled them.  The better way to think of them is the first covenant, and then the final, or fulfilled covenant.  All along, God's intention was to bring forth the Messiah, the Savior of the world.  The very purpose of the Old covenant was to prepare the people for the coming, complete covenant that would arrive with the Messiah.

 

Yet here is the caricature: we have two testaments with two radically different theologies - even two radically different “gods.”  In the Old Testament you get a God of wrath and judgment, but in the New Testament, you get a God of love.

 

Um, no.

 

The only way to reach that conclusion would be through a superficial reading of the texts themselves.  In truth, there isn't a difference between how the two testaments picture God at all.

 

For example, there is enormous love and grace and mercy in the Old Testament pictures of God.  The first thirty-nine books of the Bible are more marked by God’s incredible restraint, His unbelievable patience, His undying love, than any manifestations of His wrath.

 

The truth is that God is a God of love and justice, grace and judgment, mercy and accountability.  Together, they form a single picture, for the story of the two testaments is one story.  It tells the progressive, unfolding drama of the wild pursuit of God of those He created.  From creation through to Abraham, Moses to the prophets, a relentless love was being poured out that was growing, building, revealing itself until it reached its climax in the most radical moment in all of cosmic history:

 

God Himself shed His glory, assumed human form, and took the place of sacrifice in order to save us.

 

So is it “an eye for an eye” or “turn the other cheek”?  Understanding the two testaments as a single story, we now know the answer:

 

It’s “yes.”

 

Because it’s a singular story, we interpret the Old Testament in light of its fulfillment in the New Testament.  Jesus Himself said that He did not come to abolish the law, but to fulfill it.  We all deserve an eye for an eye.  We all deserve death for our sins.  But Christ on the cross took on the penalty for our sin as a grace-gift to all who would receive it.  The Old Testament remains the yardstick, but not the pathway.

 

So does the law in the Old Testament apply to us today at all?

 

Yes.

 

The law provides us with a paradigm of timeless ethical, moral and theological principles.  It’s just that some laws no longer have validity because they have been completely fulfilled in Christ, such as the sacrificial system.

 

Here's the principle:  all of the Old Testament applies to Christians, but none of it applies apart from its fulfillment in Christ.

 

We obey the laws of sacrifice by trusting in Christ as our once-for-all sacrifice, not by bringing sheep or goats to be slain each weekend in church.

 

The kosher laws were designed to set the Israelites apart from the other nations, so we obey this principle when we morally separate ourselves from sin.

 

And on it goes.

 

This is why so many misinterpret the “eye for an eye” and “turn the other cheek” passages.  The “eye for an eye” passage in Deuteronomy 21 was about whether you could pursue private vendettas, to retaliate when they had been wronged.

 

The answer was “no.”

 

That was for the judges to decide.  They were to follow a principle based on an eye for an eye, meaning compensation and restitution in direct proportion to the crime.  They were to match the damages inflicted – and no more.  You were not to have blood feuds, or private wars.

 

So “eye for an eye” was just a literary device intended to give the principle for a formula for compensation.

 

In the New Testament, we can paraphrase Jesus’ teaching as saying, “You have heard of ‘eye for eye’ – and that’s good – but I tell you to go farther!”

 

“Don’t retaliate at all!”

 

“Don’t harbor a spirit of resentment.  If someone does you wrong, meet it by doing them something right!”

 

This was a pattern throughout the teaching of Jesus such as “You have heard not to commit adultery – I tell you, don’t lust in your heart!”

 

Jesus wanted to take the law and put it in people’s hearts.  He wanted to take what was civically established, and have it burn in their souls as an internal compass.  So there’s no contradiction – just an expansion, an application, a personalizing of the Kingdom of God in every human heart.

 

Now, some might say, “Fine.  But what about the New Testament stuff that’s a bit sketchy – like headdresses for women – if it’s the fulfillment of the Old Testament, how do you deal with that?  Aren’t we right back to cherry-picking what we want to follow?"

 

Um, again, no.

 

But we’ll make that part 2.

 

James Emery White

 

 

Sources    

 

Christopher J.H. Wright, An Eye for An Eye: The Place of Old Testament Ethics Today.

 

Klein, Blomberg and Hubbard, An Introduction to Biblical Interpretation.

 

Henrietta Mears, What the Bible is All About.

 

Walter C. Kaiser, Jr., Peter H. Davids, F.F. Bruce, and Manfred T. Brauch, The Hard Sayings of the Bible.

 

 

Editor’s Note

 

James Emery White is the founding and senior pastor of Mecklenburg Community Church in Charlotte, NC, and the ranked adjunctive professor of theology and culture at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary, which he also served as their fourth president.  His newly released book is The Church in an Age of Crisis: 25 New Realities Facing Christianity (Baker Press).  To enjoy a free subscription to the Church and Culture blog, log-on to www.churchandculture.org, where you can post your comments on this blog, view past blogs in our archive and read the latest church and culture news from around the world.  Follow Dr. White on twitter@JamesEmeryWhite.

Broken Windows

Broken Windows

 

A social scientist, James Q. Wilson was perhaps best known for his “broken windows” theory of law enforcement which laid the groundwork for crime-reduction programs in cities throughout the nation, beginning with New York.

 

In the 1980's, New York City was in the grip of one of the worst crime epidemics in its history.  But then, suddenly and without warning, from a high in 1990, the crime rate went into a dramatic decline.  Murders dropped by two-thirds.  Felonies were cut in half.

 

Why?

 

They followed Wilson’s theory.

 

Wilson argued that crime is the inevitable result of disorder.  If a window is broken and left unrepaired, people walking by will conclude that that no one cares and no one is in charge.  Soon, more windows will be broken, and the sense of anarchy will spread from the building to the street on which it faces, sending a signal that anything goes.

 

The idea is that crime is contagious.  It can start with a broken window and spread to an entire community.  Which means that what matters are the little things; what become critical are small stands against the spread of crime.

 

Which is exactly how New York City addressed the problem.

 

The war was waged on broken windows and graffiti, focusing on the subways.  The cleanup took from 1984 to 1990.  It soon spread to the entire city.  Seemingly inconsequential enforcements, such as turnstile-jumping on the subways, the "squeegee men" who came up to drivers at intersections, public drunkenness, and littering, were targeted.  To the surprise of all, crime began to fall in the city.

 

In Serious Times, I used Wilson’s theory to argue a point about how Christians can make a difference with their life.

 

When we live in such a way that we influence as “salt” and “light” (Mt. 5:13-16), with lives infused by Christ, it impacts the world around us in disproportionate measure.  We become the mended windows and the scrubbed-off graffiti.  The key to making a difference is not often a massive program, but what some have called the “monastic option” – humble, deliberate acts of cultural preservation.  This is precisely what a deepened soul, with a developed mind, following God’s call, rooted in a church, accomplishes.  Small, individual acts of living like, and for, Christ in relation to those who do not.

 

Henri Nouwen writes of a church building site where monks were working closely together with some good-natured, but good-cursing workers.  He wondered how the monks would react.  He knew how he would react.  He would not say anything at first, but slowly get angry until he finally exploded to say, “Don’t you know you are not supposed to curse!”  Then everyone would be angry, the air would be tense, and charity would be hard to find.  While Nouwen contemplated such things, a monk by the name of Anthony did respond.  After having heard the name of Jesus used “in vain” several times over from one particular man, Anthony walked quietly to the man, put his arm around his shoulder, and said, “Hey, you know – this is a monastery – and we love that man here.”  The man looked up at him, smiled, and said, “To tell you the truth – I do too.”  And they both had a good laugh.

 

And from that simple exchange, everything changed.

 

Why?

 

A broken window had been repaired.

 

James Q. Wilson died on Friday.  He was 80.

 

James Emery White

 

 

Sources

 

James Emery White, Serious Times (InterVarsity Press).

 

For a good introduction to Wilson’s theory, and specifically the New York experiment, see Malcolm Gladwell’s The Tipping Point: How Little Things Can Make a Big Difference.

 

On the idea of the monastic option, see Morris Berman, Twilight of American Culture, as well as T.S. Eliot, Christianity and Culture.

 

Henri J. M. Nouwen, The Genesee Diary: Report from a Trappist Monastery .

 

Sampling of obituaries on Wilson’s life:  “James Q. Wilson dies at 80; pioneer in 'broken windows' approach to improve policing,” Elaine Woo, Los Angeles Times, March 3, 2012, read online; “James Q. Wilson, scholar identified with ‘broken-windows’ theory of crime prevention, dies at 80,” Matt Schudel, The Washington Post, March 2, 2012, read online; “James Q. Wilson, 1931-2012, Originated ‘Broken Windows’ Policing Strategy,” Bruce Weber, New York Times, March 2, 2012, read online.

 

 

Editor’s Note

 

James Emery White is the founding and senior pastor of Mecklenburg Community Church in Charlotte, NC, and the ranked adjunctive professor of theology and culture at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary, which he also served as their fourth president.  His latest book is What They Didn’t Teach You in Seminary (Baker).  To enjoy a free subscription to the Church and Culture blog, log-on to www.churchandculture.org, where you can post your comments on this blog, view past blogs in our archive and read the latest church and culture news from around the world.  Follow Dr. White on twitter @JamesEmeryWhite.

25 Books Every Christian Should Read

 

HarperOne has recently published 25 Books Every Christian Should Read: A Guide to the Essential Spiritual Classics, selected by Renovare and a “specially appointed editorial board,” including Richard J. Foster, Dallas Willard and Phyllis Tickle.

 

Renovare has had great success with previous compendiums, such as Devotional Classics and Spiritual Classics.  Their format, followed here as well, is to list the “classic” and then offer an excerpt, accompanied by reflection questions.

 

In the foreword, Chris Webb, the President of Renovare, admits this particular listing is a huge claim.  After all, are there really any definitive books every Christian should read, other than the Bible itself, and are these those books?

 

Having compiled a few reading lists myself, most notably in A Mind for God (InterVarsity Press), I found the list interesting:

 

On the Incarnation - St. Athanasius

Confessions - St. Augustine

The Sayings of the Desert Fathers - Various

The Rule of St. Benedict - St. Benedict

The Divine Comedy - Dante Alighieri

The Cloud of Unknowing - Anonymous

Revelations of Divine Love (Showings) - Julian of Norwich

The Imitation of Christ - Thomas a Kempis

The Philokalia - Various

Institutes of the Christian Religion - John Calvin

The Interior Castle - St. Teresa of Avila

Dark Night of the Soul - St. John of the Cross

Pensees - Blaise Pascal

The Pilgrim’s Progress - John Bunyan

The Practice of the Presence of God - Brother Lawrence

A Serious Call to a Devout and Holy Life - William Law

The Way of a Pilgrim - Unknown Author

The Brothers Karamazov - Fyodor Dostoevsky

Orthodoxy - G.K. Chesterton

The Poetry of Gerard Manley Hopkins

The Cost of Discipleship - Dietrich Bonhoeffer

A Testament of Devotion - Thomas R. Kelly

The Seven Storey Mountain - Thomas Merton

Mere Christianity - C.S. Lewis

The Return of the Prodigal Son - Henri J.M. Nouwen

 

The list is obviously tilted toward devotional and spiritual classics, as opposed to theological works, and is a weakness.   Considering Renovare’s emphasis, this wasn’t a surprise.  But accepting their emphasis, how could one have Nouwen on such a short list, but not Francis de Sales?  Or in poetry, Hopkins over Blake?  Such choices smell a little trendy.

 

Of greater issue was their list of highlighted contemporary authors – the “future” required reading, if you will.  Wendell Berry, okay.  But Brian McLaren?  Really?  And isn’t Anne Lamott another trendy choice, but far from a substantive one?  (And I like reading her as much as anyone).

 

But I welcome any and all such listings, if for no other reason than the ensuing conversation about which books deserve to be on the list.

 

For a sampling, would any of the following deserve inclusion?

 

Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica

Martin Luther, The Babylonian Captivity of the Church; The Small Catechism

John Milton, Paradise Lost

William Blake, Songs of Innocence and of Experience

John Henry Newman, Apologia pro vita sua

Kierkegaard, Fear and Trembling

T.S. Eliot, Four Quartets; Murder in the Cathedral

Simone Weil, Waiting for God

Dorothy Sayers, The Mind of the Maker

J.R.R. Tolkien, The Lord of the Rings

Flannery O’Connor, A Good Man is Hard to Find

Martin Luther King, Jr., Why We Can’t Wait

Solzhenitsyn, A Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich; The Gulag Archipelago

Annie Dillard, Pilgrim at Tinker Creek

 

Of course they would.  And more.  But then again, it wouldn’t be a list of 25.

 

And perhaps that’s the problem.

 

Twenty-five books could never begin to reflect what every Christian should read.

 

But giving credit where credit is due, you could have worse starts.

 

James Emery White

 

 

Sources

 

25 Books Every Christian Should Read: A Guide to the Essential Spiritual Classics, edited by Julia L. Roller (HarperOne).

 

James Emery White, A Mind for God (InterVarsity Press).

 

Editor’s Note

 

To enjoy a free subscription to the Church and Culture blog, log-on to www.churchandculture.org, where you can post your comments on this blog, view past blogs in our archive and read the latest church and culture news from around the world.  Follow Dr. White on twitter @JamesEmeryWhite.