What is discipleship? In Jesus' "great commission" the one imperative floating in a sea of active participles (as you are going, baptizing, teaching, etc.) is "make disciples." Disciple making IS the commission of Jesus' church - among others. So... what is discipleship? What are its marks? What should we be looking for and expecting?
It seems to me one of the traditional markers in the American church is "regular Sunday attendance" and another is "involvement in a class/Bible study/small group" - but is mere presence at activities somehow magically making disciples? Were Jesus' disciples of a totally different nature than this? Were Paul's? And does a potential radical change in how we understand discipleship mean we all become like Shane Claiborne's community?
Treading we hope and joy and yet great uncertainty...
REV
5 comments:
Who is Shane Clairborne?
As we get further into Camp's book, it will become evident (at least it did to me) that Camp draws a different line than revivalist evangelicalism seems to have done. In noting the behaviors of Constantine and Charlemagne he suggests that "conversion" is no necessarily salvation and converts are not necessarily disciples. However, to the first question in my first post, does he use the Catholic church as the basis of his argument? If so, then what are the difference between Catholic disciple making, Mennonite disciple making, and pietist disciple making, and any other "Christian" disciple making? Is there a standardized answer to your question, what is a disciple?
Dale...
First, Shane Claiborne is a neo-monastic who lives either in Philadelphia or a suburb close thereto. Its an inner city monastary/communal life that he and a group have become to discover a Christianity that is not the mainstream.
Secondly, onto discipleship in different traditions... granted. And good points. But I'm wondering about bibical discipleship. So Jesus calls some fishermen to follow him around for three years. We have NOTHING like this nowadays. George Lucas' Jedi seem to come the closest with their padawans for crying out loud!
Also agreed that the emphasis on conversion = salvation needs to be understood pre-Constantine, not post. Absolutely. That said, the proverbial "robber on the cross" still somehow means some thing. What it means may bear some diligent work, but it remains something to consider.
As for "is there a standardized answer?" Hmmm... if by this you mean, "was Levi the same disciple as Andrew?" well then of course there's no "standard." If however standards such as Jesus preached about (visiting the imprisoned, caring for the widow, clothing the naked, shining as light in the world, being salt of the earth, not lusting, not murdering others with our words, on and on...) if instead THESE are the markers of a disciple, a talmid of Rabbi Jesus, THEN we do have some standard (of which we'll of course all fall short).
Hmmmm... is this making progress? Thoughts?
Well, Jesus said, "Come out from among them and be ye separate." (You know, I just realized I've heard that all my life and I've never looked it up to see if Jesus really said that. The ruts we get into . . .) Anyway, if that principle represents a fundamental of true discipleship, then we ought to 1) know what it means and 2) do what it says, yes? Is that what Clairborne, in the manner of Bonhoeffer and Shaeffer, is attempting?
And even if it is, how does being separate, a "holy" disciple, interact with being obedient to the command to "Go into all the world and make disciples." Sorry, but I don't see how "go"ing and "cloistering" accomplish the same thing.
And, how do you find out all these cool things about all these cool people doing all this cool stuff?
And, on to Camp. I think he is wondering the same thing. What is biblical discipleship by principle and by practice? I think he is pointing out a particular disparity between what the Bible defines as discipleship and what the church in general defines as discipleship. Which is the question I have.
Also,the robber followed Jesus by faith through death into glory with what life he had left in him. Is that a good definition of discipleship?
And if Jesus standardized the definition of biblical discipleship (which of course he did) how come his disciples don't follow the standard? Is following a standard the man preaches the same as being a disciple of the man(in terms of being a biblical disciple)? I want to think that there is more to being a disciple than what I'm experiencing, but does that mean that I am looking for a behavioral formula that will replace Jesus with my own efforts and make me actually a disciple of myself and not of his? Is discipleship really as simple as "if you love me, keep my commandments?"
Finally, keep in mind what the knife said to the spoon.
May the fork be with you!
Thanks Dale. A lot to respond to.
First, on the "come out of" reference from Revelation 17. Yes, certainly there is a place for God's people to be separated from "Rome" and not participate in her harlotry. True. Amazingly, Jesus could do this. He could sit with drunks, prostitutes, swindlers, and religious hypocrites and not once commit any of their sins!
Secondly, on the issue of the cloister, modern monastics aren't arguing for a "get away from the world" p.o.v. Rather they are arguing for a radical discipleship that is first rigorous in faithfulness to Jesus (not casual Sunday attendance) and secondly thoroughly involved in the community (hence they're often in urban settings and work with the poor and marginalized). My church, by contrast, by and large does neither of these things. Many are Sunday attendees and virtually all want nothing to do with "messy" people.
Third, finding out about "cool" people. Umm...??? Dale, its 'cause I am cool! Obviously. No... internet, blogs, Christianity Today, just pick up on stuff here and there, and listening to the church planters.
Dale wrote: "I think he is pointing out a particular disparity between what the Bible defines as discipleship and what the church in general defines as discipleship." Yes! I think this is Camp's driving thesis precisely.
Dale asked: "And if Jesus standardized the definition of biblical discipleship (which of course he did) how come his disciples don't follow the standard?" Camp answers this in the first of his arguments by looking at history and placing the demise at the time of Constantine. Many other scholars have tread this ground before, so he's not offering something earth-shattering. Frankly I agree with him.
Dale asked: "Is discipleship really as simple as "if you love me, keep my commandments?"" That about sums it up for me. The early centuries rabbis had their talmidim, who would recite the scriptures, recite the interpretation of the scriptures from that rabbi, and then go and do. Jesus did the same with His disciples: do as I say and as I do.
But... Camp argues... when Christendom became the power, it was no longer "necessary" to live radically, go and be crucified, or literally take care of the widows and orphans. Now things were spiritualized, privatized (especially in our modern world). Personal piety and towing the line with ecclesiastical doctrine and dogma. The Reformation didn't help, still obsessed about doctrine. Its not that Jesus doesn't care about doctrine, its just that its not the thrust of His ministry. Primarily He wanted disciples who cared for the poor, the marginalized, the sick, the imprisoned, the tax collectors, the prostitutes, etc.
INSTEAD, Camp argues, when Constantine's reforms came into power the outcasts of society weren't "Christian" and were therefore bad. Old Pharisaism had reared its ugly head again and now the Christians were the Pharisees. And this only gets worse when we get to "Left Behind" for now we have the "born again" types who are rewarded with the kingdom. This is precisely what the Pharisees were obsessed about: getting the outward religion right so that God would come and reward them (and destroy the Romans, the scum, and the sinners). Jesus instead comes to bring hope to the Romans, the scum, adn the sinners. So does our modern church in America? Camp says no. And by and large I too say no. Yes, there are pockets and wonderfully awesome stories, but most Christian folk I know don't want to get into the messy stuff. Hanging out with prostitutes and tax collectors ain't a real appealing church mission statement.
Enough for now. Long post.
REV
Post a Comment