I now have to recant on my post and say to everyone I was wrong on my position but I think I my intentions were correct. My Post on Purate to Steaks has been demolished, disposed, crushed, dissolved and mutilated by this post! Below is a powerful excerpt from it!
It is vitally important that we understand the genetic reality of spiritual life, the organic nature of spiritual growth, and the inherent reproductivity of the life of Christ, beginning with the reality that we are born of the Spirit and that all growth and reproduction is a function of the Spirit.
then…
Then in a rush to transform our new converts into shiny, happy christians we train them into every aspect of cultural christianity rather than trusting the process of transformation by the Spirit that begins within before it becomes evident to others. The goal is to get them looking and acting like good christians as soon as possible.
So we feed them high-octane food in order to grow quickly.
Yeah, That is a jab to the guts……..
This is tremendous.
I encourage everyone to go to the site and read the whole article. The post is so eye opening. Here’s my favorite part:
“Many formats for discipleship revolve around teaching which is evidence that we see growth as transfer of information and knowledge.”
How often have I thought to myself, “Man, if they only knew!”. Okay, to the repentance corner I go!
Thanks Bro. Lionel for your willingness to “recant” for the sake of truth. You are truly an example to us all!
Lionel, forgive me for commenting with a bit of a drive-by mindset, but I’m wondering: are you really recanting your previous post? Seeing as Grace’s writing convicted you, the sentiment behind From Purate to Steak Dinners must’ve been tainted by undue preoccupation with rushing appearances of growth. Her reflections, including the insightful bits quoted by you and Lawrence, are trenchant reminders for all of us not to confuse the fruits of Christian life with its roots.
However, having read her post, and re-read the one it allegedly left “demolished, disposed, crushed, dissolved and mutilated,” I believe From Purate to Steak Dinners is actually more helpful exhortation than Disciples or Converts. There is nothing inherently wrong about your three “stages” of maturity. Disciplined growth in doctrinal understanding, flowing into teaching others, is a worthy ambition. Maybe statements like “[the mature] person should spend just as much time in their word as their elders or ‘pastor’” or “pastors should be working themselves out of jobs with each individual christian… if not then the equipping they are called to do isn’t being done” (emphases mine) were overdone, and Grace’s reflections on organic discipleship speak to that.
But does anyone else find her post somewhat ambiguous about what she rebukes, what she endorses, and why? Is Disciples or Converts worthy of unmeasured praise?
Mike,
No problem brother. As always I enjoy and even look forward to your responses (as sparingly as they are LOL). No the issue was the measure of growth is what is demolished. I still believe that a mark of true discipleship is the knowing and effective handling of the word; however, my focus was that, which I actually attempted to clear up in the post on theology and doctrine.
However the issue is that those things are THE mark of a growing believer can be misleading and that is what was crushed, demolished……… I still believe a pastor should work himself/herself (though I don’t agree fully with women pastors) out of a job with maturing believers and that relationship should not continue in an elder/non-elder format but it should become mutual so that is one part of the post I uphold with great tenacity! The perpetual pastor/laymen/congregant cycle that persists and defines our modern churches is unbiblical. As we see Elders being set up, they were to provide oversight to younger less mature believers, but I believe Paul has full expectations that those believers will mature!
So again my demolished statement flows from my position of theological knowledged being THE fruit I still believe it to be important but more important is the life changing power of the Spirit and love and I think this can be done without any theological education (formally speaking).
Mike Odlyzko,
I can agree with you ass well….I really did not see the error in a some of the things that was said as well…The statements you quoted were hard to digest but understanding the context they made sense to me. So maybe I am the one who is still in need of more enlightenment.
Brian,
ass? LOL!!!! No really if you read the post none of it was relational nor the one anothers. The post I recited did cover that as the dominate mark of discipleship. Do you disagree? I know many who are trained in theology but are relation time bombs, the true mark of discipleship is found in how we relate to God and one another.
Lionel, I think I got you. You were convicted about casting doctrinal understanding and teaching as the principal marks of Christian maturity, right? In that light, Grace’s post was a strong, gracious (pun intended
) correction.
However, I asked whether others had reservations about Disciples or Converts because I think the piece — although beautifully insightful in its essence — is harmful if swallowed whole. I’ll try to explain what I mean.
Consider Grace’s diagnoses:
[1] We have abandoned dependence on the Spirit for growth and reproduction.
If we were to admit the real lack of reproduction within the church, perhaps we would discover that the reason for our sterility is that we have abandoned our true genetic nature and failed to rely on the life of the Spirit for growth and reproduction.
[2] We falsely treat conversion as an even rather than a process, blinding people to the importance of lifelong discipleship.
Counting decisions for Christ… treats conversion as a single transaction and diminishes the ongoing nature and process of salvation, dismissing the reality that the journey to knowing God is a lifelong endeavor with many moments of decision and commitment.
[3] We pressure “conversion” events rather than patiently trust the ongoing work of the Spirit.
… in a rush to notch our evangelism belt or perhaps due to our genuine fear of car and truck accidents, we rush people to a decision statement prematurely rather than trusting the work of the Spirit that is already occurring.
[4] We confuse pet symptoms of spiritual growth, even some culturally constructed false ones, for the thing itself. Worse, we push this on others in the “reproduction” process.
… in a rush to transform our new converts into shiny, happy christians we train them into every aspect of cultural christianity rather than trusting the process of transformation by the Spirit that begins within before it becomes evident to others.
[5] We confuse discipleship with membership of, and service to, Christian organizations.
… we have to ask ourselves is if our practices are effective in making disciples. Do our programs and services produce “fully devoted followers of Christ?” At what point did we begin interpreting that phrase to mean people who are committed to the needs of the church organization?
Also, her proposed remedies:
[1] Ensure discipleship clearly aims to establish a lifelong membership with the Head and members of Christ’s body.
[The missional church is] attempting to make disciples in a manner in which conversion is viewed in the context of establishing a long-term relationship with Jesus and with other believers which may never be reflected in the roster of a particular church organization.
[2] Understand that discipleship is an obedient relationship with Christ seeking the same for others. Beware tribalistic “conversion.”
Making disciples is about a relationship with Christ that results in a lifestyle of obedience to the commands of Christ which requires disciples to make more disciples. Making converts is about adhering to the doctrine of a particular faction, church, denomination, sect or religion. One can convert without becoming a disciple of Christ.
[3] Patiently allow the Spirit’s transforming work in others without artificially conditioning their lifestyle.
Are we willing to patiently allow the real work of transformation by the Spirit in a person’s life instead of expecting them to conform their behavior before it is an internal reality?
[4] Trust the Holy Spirit to forge healthy community.
Will we ever trust that the Holy Spirit could catalyze and orchestrate community and gathering?
[5] Recognize that true growth is messy and unpredictable.
Organic growth can be messy. It usually isn’t straightforward and doesn’t necessarily produce uniform results.
There is a lot of wisdom in those points. I can read the paraphrases of her diagnoses and remedies, and belt a hearty “Amen!” But are Grace and I on the same page? Well, I ask myself:
(i) Does Grace ever discuss how to distinguish spiritual growth and rot, fertility and sterility?
(ii) Having chastised mistaken notions of growth, does she ever tell us what the fruit is borne by the real thing?
(iii)Does she exhort to any specific means to foster the end of growth in Christ — in ourselves, and in others — with consideration for the opposition of world, flesh, and Satan?
No, no, and no. Beyond tallying prevalent weaknesses of American evangelicalism, and offering a fuzzy, speculative exhortation to organic discipleship, she hardly says anything at all. You have to go to her her recommended teaching to figure out what she actually means. And it isn’t pretty.
At bottom, I am not interested in being a prickly heresy hunter. God forgive me insofar as this comment amounts to that (I can explain what bothers me about her recommended links, but I am going on the assumption that most of you feel similarly, and this post is already plenty long). But I fear that Disciples or Converts is full of nebulous, speculative thought that scarcely addresses the beliefs and conduct characteristic of healthy spiritual development. I see your “post on theology and doctrine” — Does Theology Quench the Spirit? — as a fitting corrective/supplement to Disciples or Converts.
Formatting point: in the last paragraph, the following text is not supposed to be bolded.
At bottom, I am not interested in being a prickly heresy hunter. God forgive me insofar as this comment amounts to that (I can explain what bothers me about her recommended links, but I am going on the assumption that most of you feel similarly, and this post is already plenty long). But I fear that
Knowing the intended formatting should help make sense of the last paragraph.
Lionel,
I love the comment you made to Brian about “I know many who are trained in theology but are relation time bombs, the true mark of discipleship is found in how we relate to God and one another.”
Brother that pretty well sums up what I have been struggling with trying to point out. I have a bad way of communicating what I feel sometimes. It’s almost like trying to have a conversation with someone with no personality and sense of humor at times concerning some scholarly educated preachers.
I’m a people person who loves to be around others. So I have difficulty understanding how some Christians can’t relate with others well. But then again we still have our personalities after we are saved whether good, bad, dry or outgoing.
Steven
Lionel,
Please forgive my grammar error. But I do agree with the fact that discipleship is based upon relationship but I also understand the need to get clarity within the scriptures. You can say I stand of the premise that God gives one the insight to obtain wisdom and understand much in the same as he does relationship. Does one trump the other as it relates to being a gift? I can’t say that it does. But I value both as gifts from God.
Lionel
The true sign of humikity is to admit when you are wrong.Keep up thr good work,brother Lionel.
Lionel,
Thanks for the link. I’ve enjoyed the time that I spent reading some of the conversations you have going on here.
I agree with your earlier post that growing in our knowledge and understanding of God in and through scripture is an important aspect of the maturing process. However, as you said, it can’t be divorced from “the life changing power of the Spirit and love.”
Mike,
Disciples or Converts is certainly not worthy of unmeasured praise. It was my reflection that life of the Spirit be the foundation and focus upon which all systems and methodologies of discipleship are based.
Great summary of the diagnoses and remedies.
Admittedly, I did not cover the questions you bring up, although they are good ideas for future posts. This was a longer post than I like to typically publish. I spent a lot of words “hardly saying anything at all.” But maybe I will say something more significant in a future post (or maybe not).
You claim that based upon the books and blogs that I read, “Disciples or Converts” is full of nebulous, speculative thought that scarcely addresses the beliefs and conduct characteristic of healthy spiritual development???
Either that is true of the post or it is not true, however my recommended reading list is not the basis of that judgment. It is the basis of your judgment of my credibility. I am curious about what on the recommended reading list you find “not pretty” and bordering on heresy.
I think Lionel’s posts Does Theology Quench the Spirit? and The Desire to be Right or Love Jesus? both speak to this situation.
I understand your reaction to my reading list. When I come here to read, it is like being in a strange neighborhood for me. My initial reaction is to dismiss and avoid the blog because of the prominent reformed slant.
However, I only have to read a little bit to realize that in spite of the fact that we may differ on many topics, Lionel and I are both passionate about the love of God and the reality of His kingdom. Because of his willingness to put that above all other doctrinal distinctives, he creates an atmosphere where unity is possible in spite of diversity.
I am aware that there are many things we likely could disagree about, however I am your sister in Christ, and in that, I am sure that we could find many common beliefs.
Grace,
Your response befits your name, and I do consider you a sister in Christ. I am a little embarrassed to have posted my criticisms here but not on your blog; that’s not fitting engagement, but I feared getting lost in a drawn-out meta spar on your site. I mainly wanted to chew on this post more nuancedly with a smaller, more like-minded group that seemed excessively affected by it. I noticed at your blog, though, that you have already encountered Mark Driscoll and Team Pyro, and those guys have spent more thoughts and words on controversies over emerg***, missional, open theism, etc. than I will in my lifetime. In other words, my concerns are nothing new to you, and I didn’t think it profitable to join the discussions at Kingdom Grace (at least not yet). However, you found me here, and I have a few specific responses to your comment.
Admittedly, I did not cover the questions you bring up, although they are good ideas for future posts. This was a longer post than I like to typically publish. I spent a lot of words “hardly saying anything at all.” But maybe I will say something more significant in a future post (or maybe not).
Tone and motivation are ambiguous enough when talking in person, but it’s worse on the web. I wasn’t ridiculing you, but wanted to sharply note sources of ambiguity in your Disciples or Converts post. I didn’t mean to insinuate that you haven’t given thought to those matters, nor that you never discuss them. However, the post doesn’t really stand alone, and I had to look around on your blog to figure out what you meant by what you said. Which takes us to the next point…
You claim that based upon the books and blogs that I read, “Disciples or Converts” is full of nebulous, speculative thought that scarcely addresses the beliefs and conduct characteristic of healthy spiritual development??? Either that is true of the post or it is not true, however my recommended reading list is not the basis of that judgment. It is the basis of your judgment of my credibility. I am curious about what on the recommended reading list you find “not pretty” and bordering on heresy.
I didn’t claim that “any writing informed by your reading list” “neublous, speculative thought scarcely addressing beliefs and conduct characteristic of healthy spiritual development.” I could’ve been clearer about this, but your interpretation of my reasoning doesn’t obviously follow from my language. In the last two paragraphs post 7, I tried to say something like this:
(a) I affirm Grace’s insights.
(b) However, that affirmation required I provide my own definitions for many words and phrases that she likely doesn’t share.
(c) Grace’s unsound recommended reading suggests that her criticisms are actually grounded quite differently than mine, and that her remedies diverge from mine on very basic levels.
(d) As profound as the exhortation to organic discipleship may be, suggestive storytelling and vague speculation don’t point us anywhere, and the recommended resources point us the wrong way.
(e) Therefore, Grace’s post is harmful if you absorb what she actually means. A post that urges us to understand God, and apply that understanding, gives us as much as her post, and more.
A lot of that was between the lines, so I am glad you brought up my chain of reasoning. As far as what I object to on the recommended reading/listening list, Greg Boyd and Rob Bell are most familiar. I’ve also heard enough about Rick McKinley and Will Young to be wary of them. I form first impressions pretty intuitively, but will look more carefully if it becomes necessary. At a glance, the links seemed like a lot more of the same postmodern, anti-authority/organization, “God just wants us to be radically nice and healing like Jesus” fluff that appeals to the emergent/missional crowd. That perspective also glared at me in many places when re-reading your Disciples or Converts post, not least:
So yeah, the missional church might not have large congregations of converts. Instead we are attempting to make disciples in a manner in which conversion is viewed in the context of establishing a long-term relationship with Jesus and with other believers which may never be reflected in the roster of a particular church organization.
I understand your reaction to my reading list. When I come here to read, it is like being in a strange neighborhood for me. My initial reaction is to dismiss and avoid the blog because of the prominent reformed slant.
Thank you for understanding that unfamiliarity contributes to my unease. But the emergent neighborhood isn’t that alien to me, I’m a college student who used to think a lot like its inhabitants do, and values with it humility, authenticity, informality, etc. If only our conflicts were merely over style and not substance, over how to talk about God but not over who He is and what He says and how He works…
Another note on formatting (still learning about what wordpress does and doesn’t recognize). In the third paragraph, it should read:
I didn’t claim that “any writing informed by your reading list” = “neublous, speculative thought scarcely addressing beliefs and conduct characteristic of healthy spiritual development.”
Mike,
Can you elaborate on this?
If only our conflicts were merely over style and not substance, over how to talk about God but not over who He is and what He says and how He works…
Lionel, good call on sinfully careless use of language. There is shared belief in who the eternal, triune God is: glorious Father; incarnate, crucified, and risen Son; powerful, transforming Spirit. There is shared belief in his speaking through the Bible, and through the wisdom the Spirit bestows upon human beings. There is shared belief in God’s supremacy and independence, and his working in creation and redemption.
Saying there are disagreements about who God is was especially stupid; there are minor points here (e.g., what do we say to people who claim that followers of other religions worship God? isn’t there a disagreement about who God is going on there?), but it is false in any general sense — by definition, Christians cannot be confused about this!
I’ll stand by saying that there are significant disagreements over what God says, and how He works, within the professing church. That’s kind of a moot point, though, as you’ve addressed in Wrestling With Truth. Thank you for requesting clarification before responding.
It’s also clear to me, that a lot of my writing on this thread amounts to (ultimately) straining a gnat. The important questions about Disciples or Converts boil down to:
(1) How do we distinguish spiritual growth from rot, fertility from sterility?
(2) What are the specific means that foster the end of growth in Christ — for ourselves, and for others — with consideration for the opposition of world, flesh, and Satan?
(3) How do the beliefs and practices of Christians — whatever their “affiliations” (e.g., emerg***, reformed, Roman Catholic, etc.) — measure up?
The rub, though, is that our answers might be very different from each. How then do we proceed in wisdom and love?
Mike,
No need to be embarrassed. Although a spar on my site with some of my regular commentors might be interesting.
A little background, I wouldn’t identify myself as “emerging.” I believe in the concept that the church is in an ongoing process of change to more accurately reflect the nature of God. However, I don’t necessarily agree with all of the ideas that get grouped under the banner “emerging.”
Missional is a scriptural concept that I believe is descriptive of the role of followers of Christ as agents of reconciliation.
As listed in your latest reply, my beliefs about God are basic, standard orthodox beliefs. I believe that we are reconciled to the Father through Jesus and that He is the Way, Truth, and Life. I am not confused about that.
Yes, we might not agree on matters of ecclesiology.
“God just wants us to be radically nice and healing like Jesus”
Yep, that’s me. My writing has a relational bent. That’s kind of the gist of “love God, love others.” Seems scriptural to me.
Anyway, it’s been nice visiting.