My understanding of discipleship may be evolving yet again. I’m not sure. Tell me what you think.
When I first tried to define it, this is what I came up with:
“Discipleship is trusting Jesus and trusting like Jesus.”
Which, at the West Europe Discipleship Network gathering, became:
“Discipleship is believing Jesus, believing like Jesus, and becoming like Jesus.” (Nice alliteration.)
This morning I may have had an epiphany of sorts meditating on Philippians 3:10-11 (a verse with significant influence on my life), and I’m tentatively adjusting my definition of discipleship yet again:
“Discipleship is knowing Christ by trusting Christ and trusting like Christ.”
Paul’s stated life goal is “Knowing Christ.” The fruit of knowing Christ (or maybe the means of knowing Christ) is “Becoming like him in his death and resurrection.”
Thoughts?
Thanks Rick, this is useful thinking…
My first reaction was that you were trying a deconstructionist or modernist method on an idea that was more complex than a single sentence. Then thinking more I realised that being a disciple was at least conceptually simple so should be able to be expressed straightforwardly.
I then thought about the three definitions and felt that all three were rather man-centred, missing Jesus’ calling to discipleship.
Alongside side that I felt that the descriptions were rather passive: ‘trusting Jesus’ could be done from your armchair. ‘Believing Jesus’ could be similar to the phrase in James 2:19, where ‘even the demons believe and tremble’.
‘Knowing Christ’ reminded me of Matthew 25:31-46 where Jesus said of people claiming to do things in His name (knowing Him) that He ‘never knew’ them. The Biblical concept of ‘knowing’ someone is somewhat different to 21st century use: ‘knowing’ a girl was a euphemism for having sex with them!
So the working definition I came up with was this:
‘Discipleship is responding to the call of Jesus by following Him as and in the Way.’
There are three components for me:
1. ‘Responding to the call’ – it was not that we called on Jesus, but that He called us.
2. ‘Following Him as the Way’ – He is ‘the Way, the Trust and the Life’, it is accepting this is the only way back to our Father. Following Him as the Way, subsumes the concept of trusting Him, but is a broader term.
3. ‘Following Him in the Way’ – is active, not passive, it is following what He did, going back to Matthew 25 again: ‘For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me’.
We are called to be ‘little Christs’. Discipleship is about learning to be an active ‘little Christ’ day-by-day. ‘Becoming like Jesus’ from your second version gets close, but many who don’t have a relationship with Him, ie who are not following Him as the Way, still strive to be like him.
What you seem to be doing is looking for a sort of catechism, question and answer ‘What is discipleship? Discipleship is…’ This is close to the idea in the Revised Westminster Catechism which asks the question ‘What is the chief end of man?’ and responds with ‘To glorify God and enjoy Him forever!’ That in itself is almost a good definition of discipleship. It is interesting that none of our definitions embrace the idea of enjoying the relationship.
Then I think again about this and think maybe it is too much to make a simple trite sentence about something that is a lifelong experience and relationship…
Thanks for helping me think through this. There’s much work to do.
In defense of a short definition, it provides us with a starting point. Unfortunately, as you demonstrate well, every one of the terms are loaded and will be interpreted through ones experience and theological presuppositions. Even the call to ‘glorify God and enjoy Him forever’ could be unpacked from now to eternity.
Discipleship begins with the call of Jesus. I definitely agree. It’s not a strategy, it’s not an act of self-preservation, it’s not what makes churches grow. It’s an act of obedience. And obedience always begins with the command from outside of us. It’s so important that if it can ‘fit’ a simple definition, it should be included. Any ideas?
‘Knowing Christ’ is a phrase taken directly from Paul. People can claim to know Christ but not really know him, as Jesus says in Matthew. But in spite of Jesus’ warning, it remained the ‘one thing’ Paul pursued, and God allowed it into inspired scripture.
Likewise, I belief faith (trusting, believing) is so essential to discipleship that a definition of discipleship is impossible without out. If faith simply means doctrine and believing means ‘believing in’ then that of course is not biblical faith.
In a sense biblical faith *is* passive. Until we die, we can’t truly be born.It’s not what I do that makes life possible, but what Christ does. But it’s active in that by faith we attach ourselves to Christ knowing that apart from him we can do nothing. Such faith gives up all hope of being able to follow Jesus, and ironically it’s only then that we’re actually empowered to follow him. ‘Faith without works is dead,’ as I understand it, means that if there aren’t good works/fruit then there isn’t faith. It doesn’t mean we have to add works to our faith to make it complete.
The danger with defining discipleship as ‘following Jesus’ results in what I’ve termed ‘missional legalism.’ It’s focused on what I have to do.
Developing a definition of discipleship that includes what *God* does would an interesting exercise. Any ideas how that could work?
Finally, one of our elders has written a good definition of disciple-making, which is more practical and active. I’ll post that soon.
Thanks for your help!
Hmmm… ‘making disciples’ is even more interesting!
One thing I don’t like about my definition is that it uses and assumes Biblical language and understanding. Jesus generally communicated in normal everyday phrases, his stories were somewhat cryptic, but generally the ‘man in the street’ could understand. However, as 21st century Evangelicals, we tend to use Biblical and religious language. I spend my time trying to move away from this. So what I would love to have is a definition of discipleship that the unchurched man on a London bus would understand.
I agree that faith is passive, but I don’t agree that discipleship is passive. As James says ‘faith without works is dead’. Discipleship is a step further on than mere faith.
Richard (and others) … what do you see as the strengths/weaknesses of this definition?
Discipleship is bringing all of life into Christ and Christ into all the world.
This reads more like a catchy mission statement than a description. Many mission agencies and churches could have it and it wouldn’t really work till unpacked. Uncle Luke used to look at what marketing people call ‘unique selling points’. What is unique about discipleship that needs to be spelled out?
Thanks, Richard. It’s meant to be catchy and short – like a title and subtitle of a book. Of course, any such statement is meaningless or easily distorted if the ideas aren’t understood or are understood differently.
in the words of Nick Fellers, I’m trying to develop strategic clarity from which multiple strategic plans related to the Great Commission could evolve. Strategic clarity is the view from 30,000 feet, so there’s definitely ambiguity.
In this definition, I’m balancing the work of Christ with our response, the internal with the external, and faith and action. My frustration with most definitions of discipleship is that they tend to go one direction or the other.
Ultimately, there needs to be a definition of a disciple, discipleship, and disciple-making. Or to put it another way, Who? What? and How?
This is to answer the What? question.
I think I am basically happy with it in that context, but would prefer to add the prefix ‘Responding to the call’ to show the initiation of discipleship with God. So it would become: ‘Discipleship is responding to the call of Christ by bringing all of life into Christ and Christ into all the world’.
Yes, the call is absolutely essential. Good addition.
For example, one definition of discipleship says that it is the process of learning the teachings of Jesus, internalizing them, acting upon them, and teaching them to others. That’s very practical and clear, but where is God in the process other than simply giving us the textbook? To act on such a definition would cause me to try to multiply small groups – a worthy activity, but is that all discipleship is?
Yes, I don’t like that one at all. It is cold and clinical. It makes discipleship into a religion – a set of rules to follow. It is not the teachings of Jesus that are significant, but the person. As followers of the Way, we follow not just the Way (teachings) but the Way (person). I think that is important and missing in some Evangelical statements of faith – some start with Scripture rather than starting with God. Contrast for instance IFES and NAE.