Discipleship Proper

Or, The Groundwork of the Church’s Growth

For a number of reasons it’s time to give some refreshers about the small group part of our church trellis. The last time we had any sermons on Life to Life groups was 2012, and, that's actually a long time ago. We have also been working to re-evaluate and clarify the purpose for our Life to Life leaders, as well as the expectations for current leaders and the process for identifying and onboarding future leaders. So this short break from Luke will have some reminders, give some categories and some standard operating principles.

I’m thinking about calling this series: The Adulting Church. If we rephrased Ephesians 4:16, "when each life is working properly, [it] makes the body life grow so that it builds itself up in love." We’re moving from our teen years into “mature manhood” (Ephesians 4:13).

Today we're going to consider where that mindset comes from and our general strategy for developing the life of Christ in our body. This is the work of shepherding, it is the work of disciple-making, the work of the ministry. There are principles and purpose, then there are the persons and the tactics.

It's Not Business, It's Personal

When Jesus commanded His disciples to "make disciples of all nations" (Matthew 28:19), what steps do you think that disciple-making project took in the disciples' minds? It certainly is NOT exactly the same as what we're doing in the 21st century church, though, that's not entirely a bad thing.

For obvious historical and technological reasons, the 1st century disciples could not have imagined the world-wide-web that enables almost instantaneous and global transmission of the gospel. Church web sites, Christian blogs and tweets and #blessed signs at Hobby Lobby, free sermon mp3 downloads and podcasts to carry in one's pocket, live-cast conference videos and DVD sets, any one of those things would have blown their minds. The book as we know its format wasn't even printed for another 1400 years after the apostles, and radio broadcasts were another almost 500 years after that. While Israelite men travelled to Jerusalem every year for the Passover “conference,” making disciples did not involve flying in celebrity pastors or flying to hear said speakers gathered for national Bible-centered conferences.

The disciples could not have imagined 2000 years worth of accumulated commentaries and devotional helps that fill the library shelves of laymen (or their Bible apps, or asking AI), let alone seminary trained book nerds. No doubt they would covet (an allowable Christian practice) our ability to travel with relative ease to all nations, to communicate so broadly and so quickly, even while we're sleeping, and to learn about Christ with a completed canon, let alone to stand on generations of study-ers and writers, and hear sermons in our comfortable corporate gathering spots for Lord's day services.

They would say we have very favorable conditions for making disciples. I think they would also say we're not doing very good/well at making disciples. The primary reason is because: making disciples is personal.

The Great Commission

Think about the personal implications of the Great Commission.

“Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.” (Matthew 28:19–20 ESV)

Going in Person. "Go" or “while going" is different than writing or calling or publishing. The "feet of those who preach the good news" are beautiful (Romans 10:15) because the feet go along with mouth that belong to the person that brings the gospel.

The Practice of μαθητεύω. The disciples would have thought about making disciples as they thought about being disciples. A disciple was "one who was constantly associated with someone who had a particular set of views" (μαθητής, BAGD). A disciple listened to the master or teacher and learned from him because he was there with him. They had been following a Person for three years when He gave them this assignment.

The Ordinance of Baptism. Forget for a moment what baptism pictures (identifying with the Person of Christ and with the persons of His Body), just consider the act itself. A book can't baptize anybody, a pulpit or sermon download can't either. It takes at least two persons: a dunk-er and a dunk-ee. There are no remote or online baptisms, nor is it part of a person's quiet time.

Teaching to Obey. In the discipleship process, the object of teaching is only learning to the degree that the learning leads to living. In knowledge terms, the demons know theology more accurately than we do and not because they’ve read Calvin's Institutes. A podcast may describe, in a general way, what you should do, but it cannot demonstrate for you what obedience looks like in the wild. A website cannot watch to see if you obeyed, or provide suggestions for next time, or confront you on disobedience.

The disciples learned what discipleship looked like from their Discipler. When Jesus "called to Him those whom He desired...He appointed twelve so that they might be with Him and he might send them out to preach" (Mark 3:13-14). He appointed them to hang out with Himself. Yes, He taught and ministered to the masses. But by far, most of His time and attention was personally invested in 12 ordinary men.

Paul's Ministry

The apostle Paul, author of the majority of the New Testament, also understood and practiced teaching "in public and from house to house" (Acts 20:20, and see the record of his meeting with the elders in Ephesus in Acts 20:17-35).

Paul was committed to "the gospel of the grace of God" (v.24). He "did not shrink from declaring...the whole counsel of God" (v.27). He commended the Ephesians "to God and to the word of His grace which is able to build...up and give...an inheritance among all those who are sanctified" (v.32). He loved him some truth. He loved him the Bible; he was writing (some of) it!

So, why bother going to be with them? Why bother living "among" them (v.18)? Why live with them so long, for three years (v.31)? Why work "night and day" (v.31)? Why was he crying over them (v.31)? Because, while it is important to "preach the word" (2 Timothy 4:2), and while God may make large group preaching effective, making disciples is personal. How would Paul know if his declaration was "profitable" (v.20)? Why was teaching "house to house" necessary? Because each house had individual needs, whether they knew that they needed (let alone wanted) help or not.

Air War and Ground War

Spurgeon once wrote that "Illustrations, like windows, let light into the chambers of the mind." That is very true. Windows are also easier to throw bricks through, so I'm aware that this illustration will break at certain pressure points.

Perhaps the best analogy I've heard for distinguishing between public and personal elements of making disciples, while also recognizing the benefits of both, is to think about it in terms of the air war and the ground war. From Acts 20:20, ministry that is public and from house to house.

The air war, or air campaign, illustrates large scale efforts, both with remote launching of explosives and blanket distributing of provisions. Corporate services, and then books and websites can cover a lot of people. Preachers fire gospel missiles from the pulpit that target sin. They also drop spiritual food and medication for hurting souls. As I said earlier, our air war arsenal is far more abundant than the disciples could ask or imagine.

But the air war, by definition, can only be so effective because it can only get so close.

The ground war or ground campaign represents more small scale, careful and incisive movement. Again, this includes both close-range gospel confrontation and personal gospel care. A sermon might demolish one house of sin and leave the neighbor's house standing. A door-to-door deployment is harder to avoid, and a face-to-face question is a harder to dodge. You can, but it's more difficult at close range. Likewise, having a first-aid kit is great, unless you can't get to it or don't know what to do with it. Troops on the ground carry out disciple-making objectives in close quarters. An air war could write a constitution but not by itself establish government or better living conditions.

Which is better?

For sake of making disciples, is the air campaign or the ground campaign more important? We shouldn't need to ask the question. If both were available and coordinated toward the same objective, would we really ask which is better? Why not both? Do you want cake or ice cream? Yes!

The two approaches complement each other. This isn't a competition; we're on the same side (or at least we should be). There's certainly room for, and benefits of, both. Can you imagine why a pilot would be threatened by a foot soldier wearing the same colors, or visa versa?

The two should work together, each appreciating the benefits the other provides. I'm more confident when I'm on the ground knowing that I've got air support. When I'm in the air I'm more hopeful knowing that someone is following-up (cleaning up) on the ground.

Which is harder?

I think the air war is more expensive; it takes more e...