Scripture & Mission

Missional Discernment (Part 2)

Discernment as the Missional Church’s Way of Life

My previous post on missional discernment concluded with the promise of a model of the discernment process. My comments there point beyond the vital indications in the surveyed biblical passages. Scripture bears witness to the fact of discernment in the life of the first-century church and narrates some of its essential components, but it does not serve to explain that process thoroughly. Further explanation is the work of a constructive approach to theological reflection that takes the biblical story into account and relies on a larger theological framework to say more. Missional theology, as well as my own experiences, contribute to the framework that I employ to that end.

Before proceeding, I should clarify what the missional church seeks to discern. The previous post identifies two interests apparent in Acts 13 and 15, namely, what God is calling us to do and how should we understand God’s purposes. Call these practical discernment and theological discernment. Practice and theology are not discrete issues—all theology is practical and all practice is theological—but they do represent distinct emphases as the church confronts the challenges that arise from participation in God’s mission. Along the way, it is appropriate and necessary for the church to ask, sometimes in separate moments, What should we think? and What should we do? These are the basic questions that discernement addresses.

I believe that discernment is essential to missional ecclesiology, so much so that I characterize it as our way of life. The idea of missional discernment represents how the church participates reflectively in God’s mission, which constitutes the very being of God’s people. Moreover, I suggest that this model of the discernment process, or something like it, represents the primary method of theological articulation for local churches engaged conscientiously in God’s mission:

The circle at the center of the diagram indicates that discernment is an ongoing process. Although I begin with theological imagination at the top of the circle, a community might break into the process at any point because its circularity inevitably brings us through each part.

Theological imagination

How the church conceives of God, itself, and the world—and therefore the relationships between the three—determines how we participate in God’s mission. At the same time, how the church conceives of these basic relationships is a result of theological discernment steeped in (or disconnected from!) participation in God’s mission. For example, if we imagine that God is redemptively present and active, the church is caught up in the divine purposes, and the world is the realm of God’s inbreaking kingdom, we live differently than if we imagine that God is a distant moral judge, the church is a refuge from corruption and condemnation, and the world is a sinking ship bound for destruction.

Commitment

The church’s commitment to participation in God’s mission (or lack thereof) naturally follows from our theological imagination. Faith in the Triune God whose life is revealed in the sending of the Son and the Spirit—and results in the sending of the church in the power of the Spirit—comes to expression in an ecclesial posture of openness, prayerfulness, and cruciformity (cross-shaped-ness). Our response to the Holy Spirit’s leading into redemptive work begins with openness to it: we expect that the Spirit must be discerned in order to participate well in God’s ongoing work and we accept the uncertainty of human discernment. For missional ecclesiology, commitment to God’s action in our context is embodied especially in persistent prayerfulness for eyes to see and ears to hear, for wisdom and insight, for the gifts and fruit of the Spirit, and ultimately, for the kingdom’s coming. In the end, the commitment that characterizes missional discernment is expressed in our “yes” to Jesus’s call to die to ourselves and follow him into the kingdom.

Relationship

The Spirit leads the missional church into relationship, for relationship is the essence of mission. Indeed, relationship expresses the nature of the divine life, which is the eternal communion of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. As all creation reflects the glory of God and humanity is created in the image of God, communion is the horizon of the restoration, reconciliation, and consummation of all things in Christ by the Spirit to glory of the Father—the redemption of every relationship. Toward and from critical practices of missional participation, discernment proceeds: faithful presence in our wider communities, mutual hospitality toward the other, and sincere dialogue in the midst of difference, misunderstanding, and conflict. Particularly important for the missional church is presence, hospitality, and dialogue at the margins of society, where relationships of solidarity manifest the loving intentions of God for the poor and oppressed.

Listening

In the relationships that missional participation comprises, the church seeking to discern the what to think and what to do must learn to listen carefully not only to the Spirit, Scripture, and voices of Christian tradition but to our neighbors, our wider community, and our culture. Listening requires, first, attentiveness. By paying close attention, we discover the questions that demand answers if we are to respond faithfully to God’s work. Asking questions without presuming pat answers manifests the missional church’s humility before the mystery of God’s will in time and space. Asking questions without jumping to quick answers requires an exercise of the Spirit-given patience that bears witness to our confidence in the God for whom a day is like a thousand years and a thousand years are like a day.

Experimentation

Discernment both emerges from and gives rise to experimentation. Admittedly, experimentation sounds risky and frivolous to many Christians. The truth is, commitment, relationship, and listening often lead us to conclude that we need to try something new—at least, new to us. But we do not enact new plans with the certainty that they will “work,” much less that they are God’s will. Instead, we step out in faith to explore the new possibilities that our discernment has generated. We do so with the creativity born of the Spirit of creation, openness to possibilities beyond our imagination, and humble willingness to fail in the pursuit of faithful participation in God’s mission.

Reflection

Following experimentation, it is necessary to take stock of what we have learned. As the Spirit guides the church to truth, the learning process is responsive. We must actively recollect the story of our experience in mission, meditate prayerfully on its implications, and dialogue openly about its interpretation. Recollection entials storytelling. Those who have encountered God in relationship to the other through listening and service recount their perceptions of God’s work. Together, the church receives and prays over these perceptions. Consequently, we discuss them in relation to our existing understandings of Scripture and tradition. By opening ourselves to the Spirit’s guidance through prayer and worship, we may discern God’s purposes in our context and confirm or revise our plans for further participation in God’s mission.

Biblical interpretation

Undboutedly, Scripture accompanies every moment of the discernment process. Through it, God shapes the church’s theological imagination, enlivens our commitment, guides our relationships, gives us ears to listen, encourages our experimentation, and aides our reflection. But a distinctive moment of biblical interpretation follows from these missional experiences. The church returns to Scripture, focusing our attention on the endeavor to understand what it uniquely reveals in light of participation in God’s mission. The questions that have arisen in the process of dicernment accompany our return to Scripture. They inform our close reading of the biblical text and the interpretive dialogue that ensues. Questioning, close reading, and dialogue, in turn, give rise to new understanding and elicit our response.

Response

The church’s response to new understanding—whether of what to think or do—culminates in repentance, confession, and worship. We repent of our sin, failure, and misunderstanding, turning more fully toward God’s purposes. We confess our faith in the Triune God, renewed and enriched through discernement. And we worship with the praise and thanks due the one in whose redemptive work we have been privileged to participate. These transformations, in turn, reshape our theological imagination. And so the process proceeds, as long as God’s Spirit leads the church in mission.

Christian Scholars’ Conference 2023

For many years, my Junes have been enriched by the Christian Scholars’ Conference. This year’s conference, hosted at Lanier Theological Library (Houston, TX), was stacked. The lineup of keynote speakers included neuroscientist Sharon Dirckx, theologian Willie James Jennings, philosopher James K. A. Smith, and New Testament scholar N. T. Wright.

As usual, Lee Camp’s No Small Endeavor variety show was a highlight.

Mission and World Christianity

I co-lead the Mission and World Christianity section of the conference, which hosted again this year a diverse array of presentations:

Session: Evangelism and History in World Christianity

Jeremy Hegi, Lubbock Christian University, Convener
Nadia Andrilenas, Baylor University, “Elite Vietnamese Women and European Jesuits: Indispensable Allies for the Survival of Christianity in 17th century Vietnam”
David Chrisna, Baylor University, “Journey to the East: A Search for a Historiography of Asian Christianity in the World Christianity Discourse”
Monty L. Lynn and Derran Reese, Abilene Christian University, “‘Oh, Will You Not Tell It Today?’ What Twentieth-Century Churches of Christ Sang about Missions”
Sam Twumasi-Ankrah, Heritage Christian College (Accra, Ghana), “Leadership Effectiveness in Christian Academic Institutions in Africa: A Reflection on Heritage Christian College in Accra, Ghana”

Session: Contemporary Missiology

Greg McKinzie, Lipscomb University, Convener
Misael Cornelio-Arias, Fuller Theological Seminary, “Mission, Purpose, and Community Participation in the Proclamation of a Liberating Gospel in the Power of the Spirit: A Latinex Perspective”
David Baer, Theological Education Initiative, “Fullness and Deficit as Eschatological and Missional Values: The View from the Book Called Isaiah”
Travis Myers, Saint Louis University, “Comparative Theology and Why It Matters”
Glen Bowman, Grand Canyon University, “The Influence of Faith Sharing through Social Media on Young Adults who do not Identify Themselves as Christians”

[Sadly, my convening duties distracted me from photographing the panel.]

All of these were welcome contributions, and some of them were outstanding. Indeed, I think some of our most interesting and substantial papers to date were read this year. Look for some of them in a future issue of Missio Dei journal.

The Gailyn Van Rheenen Endowed Session

Our section also includes the GVR lecture, which is in its second year. I’ve had the privilege of convening these sessions.

Gailyn Van Rheenen is a renowned missiologist whose scholarship is matched by his lifelong commitment to participation in God’s mission. He served fourteen years as a missionary in East Africa, eighteen years as a professor of missions at Harding University and Abilene Christian University, and thirteen years as the founder and director of Mission Alive, an organization that trains and partners for missional renewal in American congregations and for new church plants in our context. As a successful missionary and trainer of missionaries, Gailyn has always brought the best critical, contemporary missiology to bear on his work. He exemplifies a wonderful combination of informed practice and missiological excellence.

Accordingly, the Missio Dei Foundation founded this session of the Christian Scholars’ Conference to extend Gailyn’s legacy by creating a forum for cutting-edge missiological reflection among Churches of Christ and the wider Stone-Campbell Movement.

Fittingly, this year’s lecturer was Charles Kiser, a protege of Gailyn and one of his colleagues for many years at Mission Alive. Charles is one of the planters and pastors of Storyline Christian Community in Dallas, Texas. He is the coauthor with Elaine Heath of Trauma-Informed Evangelism: Cultivating Communities of Wounded Healers. Dr. Kiser holds a Doctorate of Ministry in Contextual Theology from Northern Seminary and serves as a faculty member of Neighborhood Seminary. And, personally, Charles is a friend whose life of missional faithfulness I deeply admire.

Charles’s lecture, “Trauma-Informed Evangelism” (based on his doctoral research and subsequent book), was an absolute feast. I knew when we invited him that his presentation would be good, but he left my expectations in the dust. It was, in a word, exceptional. You’ll have to buy the book if you want to know more.

Amy McLaughlin-Sheasby, assistant professor of Bible, missions, and ministry at Abilene Christian University was the lecture respondent. She added a vital perspective based on her work on the impact of suffering and trauma on theological imagination and discourse. After she and Charles interacted for a while, the conversation was opened to attendees, and a delightful exchange ensued.

In order to extend the conversation, we organized an additional panel discussion session titled “The Future of Evangelism.” Michael L. Sweeney, professor of world mission and New Testament and director of the master of arts in Christian ministries program at Emmanuel Christian Seminary at Milligan University, joined Charles and Amy. Sadly, a fourth panelist was unable to attend due to illness. Nonetheless, the ensuing hour and a half of dialogue was highly profitable.

I’m grateful for the Christian Scholars’ Conference and especially for the opportunity to hold space for scholars whose work serves the church’s participation in God’s mission. To be frank, gathering leaders capable of this sort of reflection on mission and world Christianity continues to be a challenge, not least because many such thinkers devote their summers to mission work. In one sense, this is a good problem because it represents a persistent commitment to practice, from which none of us wants scholarly missiological discourse to be disconnected. At the same time, the difficulty represents an unhealthy dichotomy between theory and practice that continues to haunt too much of Christian mission in our tradition. I remain hopeful that bridging this gap is possible, and I believe CSC is the best place for us to do so. Special thanks to all who participated as presenters and attendees of these important sessions!

Discipleship Groups

Discipleship groups are a core component of my ministry and spiritual life. In this post, I overview what they’re about and how they work.

Transformation at the Grassroots

When my family returned from Peru in order for me to pursue doctoral studies, we faced the difficulties common to long-term cross-cultural missionaries who return to their cultures of origin: reverse culture shock, guilt and doubt, disappointment with the church, and spiritual malaise. For me, a primary consequence of this transition was the feeling that, while I thought I knew how to make disciples in Peru, I was unsure how to do so in the US. The doctoral program was my primary work, but I remained compelled to make disciples, so I sought equipping to that end. This led me to Mission Alive, through which I participated in a remote discipleship cohort.

The result of this training was the formation of a discipleship group (DGroup) composed of members of our local congregation who were looking for deeper relational and spiritual engagement. A year-and-a-half-long experiment in missional community ensued. The experience convinced me of the need for such grassroots endeavors to lead life-long church members into a mode of missional life together that, I believe, constitutes authentic discipleship. This community became the most life-giving aspect of our time in southern California.

After our move to middle Tennessee, we eventually repeated the experiment. Our initial Murfreesboro DGroup has recently multiplied into three new groups. I am more hopeful than ever that the DGroup process can transform local churches from the inside out.

I think of DGroups, at least as we have implemented them, as guerrilla actions within traditional church structures. We have never asked for permission to form DGroups, and given the opportunity to institute a discipleship program in a local church, I would refuse. Discipleship is not a program but a way of life, which requires a high degree of voluntary commitment. The attempt to impose a discipleship agenda structurally would inevitably fail.

In other words, the transformation of church members into disciples happens at the grassroots level. The phrasing of this claim risks offending those who would identify themselves as disciples of Jesus by virtue of their conversion, church membership, and private devotion. It is a necessary risk, and I am prepared to defend the implication (see my post “Discipleship in the Gospels: Following Jesus”). Discipleship entails an intentionality that the DGroup process facilitates. By intentionality, I refer to two ideas: an intentional pursuit of discipleship to Jesus in community and a life together aimed at God’s intentions.

The latter idea qualifies the DGroup process as missional in my understanding. The former might also, depending on one’s understanding of Jesus’s direction. But it is impossible to begin a process of intentional discipleship by reconfiguring participants’ collective understandings of Jesus (that happens . . . on the way), so the most practical way to convey the missional intent of the process to a new DGroup is to emphasize that our undertaking is not to be confused with a “small group.” Granting that the term small group can refer to a huge variety of experiences, it has nonetheless come to connote spiritual self-centeredness: community for community’s sake, intimacy for intimacy’s sake, spiritual growth for spiritual growth’s sake, and so on. A DGroup, by contrast, commits from day one to align its intent with God’s purposes beyond us and, therefore, to break our shared life open in order to include others in it. Discipleship is about forming missional communities.

The DGroup Process

I will not attempt to summarize the entire course of the DGroup process as we have implemented it. Instead, I share some key dimensions of the process using the essential model I learned from Mission Alive: the invitation-challenge matrix. This model originates from Mike Breen’s Building a Discipling Culture (I have the second edition):

The idea is simple but profound: discipleship requires both high invitation and high challenge. My own representation of the paradigm follows.

The two axes:

High challenge entails responsibility, scrutiny, correction, and exhortation. Low challenge entails irresponsibility, indifference, permissiveness, and silence.

High invitation entails welcome, acceptance, accommodation, and encouragement. Low invitation entails exclusivity, judgment, intolerance, and denunciation.

The four quadrants:

High invitation/Low challenge (toxic invitation) gives rise to passivity, apathy, grace without truth, religious consumerism, and relativism.

High challenge/Low invitation (toxic challenge) gives rise to aggression, fanaticism, truth without grace, works righteousness, and legalism.

Low invitation/Low challenge (nominal membership) gives rise to indifference, irresponsibility, spirituality without community, autonomy, and radical individualism.

High invitation/High challenge (discipleship) gives rise to responsible participation, gentle accountability, grace and truth, mutual submission, and sincere dialogue.

Probably, most readers can place their church experiences in either the High invitation/Low challenge or the High challenge/Low invitation quadrants. Congregations tend to fall in these categories. The legalism of my tradition has usually reflected Low invitation/High challenge tendencies and has reactively produced High invitation/Low challenge congregations. The pendulum swing is understandable. And the combination of high invitation and high challenge has proven elusive, but this is exceedingly common. Discipleship in community calls for something unusual.

Again, the combination of high invitation and high challenge is what we’re after in the DGroup process. The structure of our meetings reflects this pursuit. About half of our time is given to “checking in” with each other. We use various prompts to generate sincere openness about our lives. The aim of these conversations is to foster vulnerability, authenticity, and trust across time. In this space, there is no judgment. We seek to hear each other’s stories with gracious understanding and encouragement. The other half of our time is devoted to a “curriculum” of discipleship concepts. I hesitate to use the word curriculum since it conveys an academic mode of discourse, which is inaccurate. But there is a set of concepts that we talk through together. These concepts are undoubtedly challenging. They call us to self-reflection, honesty, and commitment.

Discipleship is inherently a process of both learning and discipline. But high invitation constitutes the environment in which these challenging pursuits are possible and sustainable. Without relationships characterized by sincerity and trust, there is no reason to expect the spiritual growth that follows from mutual submission and genuine accountability.

It is important to note that the DGroup process requires an open-ended gathering. The time commitment involved is significant. A high degree of challenge, therefore, characterizes our invitation to prospective participants. We do not put limits on our check-ins; they take however long they take. If someone (or more than one person) is dealing with a significant personal issue, the conversation and prayer that ensue are not truncated for the sake of our schedules. Yet, in such instances, we do not forego a discussion of the concepts that challenge us to deeper discipleship. In my experience, three hours is the average duration of a DGroup meeting. Accordingly, the demands of the process require a limited number of participants; we have not formed a group of more than twelve people. We readily accept that those who cannot make space for so much time together refuse the invitation to participate.

The DGroup process makes the cultivation of both dimensions of Christian life together —invitation and challenge—intentional. This is, in my experience, impossible in large-group settings. Sermons, classes, worship, and fellowship are indispensable aspects of larger church life. I participate in all of these each week, and advocacy of intentional discipleship in no way disqualifies them. But I’m convinced the gathering of groups of six to twelve followers of Jesus into voluntary communities committed to high invitation and high challenge is irreplaceable in the transformation of both individual believers and traditional churches.

Missional Discernment (Part 1)

In another post, I mentioned an ongoing study of spiritual disciplines using Ruth Haley Barton’s book Sacred Rhythms. I’ve recently been leading the discussion of her chapter on discernment, which has some strengths and some glaring weaknesses. Here, I briefly highlight one of the deficiencies in the privatized and internalized process of discernment that Barton portrays. In the next post on missional discernment, I will highlight a second deficiency.

Disclaimer: I’m confident that Barton is a more spiritual person than I. That isn’t a high bar, so it’s bound to be true, likely to a great degree. And her years of experience as a spiritual director should be given considerable weight in the reader’s assessment of my critique. In any case, the chapter is helpful, and the book more so. Don’t hesitate to read it, and take my critical reflections here as expansion rather than condemnation.

Discernment is Communal

The first deficiency of Barton’s chapter regards the communal dimensions of discernment evident in the New Testament. Her discussion reveals a deep individualism in her understanding of discernment. It is not absolute, since she makes room for “community” as one of the data points one should gather in the discernment process. Oddly, though, the majority of her discussion under this subheading deals with seeking solitude! Her summary of the practice includes this listless concession: “When you feel you’ve gathered enough information, you may want to synthesize it, talk about what you are noticing with a spiritual friend and invite their feedback” (129). That’s the extent of attention to community in the chapter.

This leads me to highlight what I consider two prominent examples of discernment in the New Testament. Neither are marked by the biblical vocabulary of discernment (another needful addition to Barton’s discussion that I leave for a later post), but they seem to be moments in which the church practiced what that vocabulary signifies: a communal exercise of perceptual faculties in the pursuit of God’s will in order to make a concrete decision.

Discernment through Worship, Fasting, and Prayer

Now in the church at Antioch there were prophets and teachers: Barnabas, Simeon who was called Niger, Lucius of Cyrene, Manaen a member of the court of Herod the ruler, and Saul. While they were worshiping the Lord and fasting, the Holy Spirit said, “Set apart for me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them.” Then after fasting and praying they laid their hands on them and sent them off.
Acts 13:1–3 (NRSV)

It’s not obvious that this moment represents discernment as such. Perhaps it is simply the church doing what it does, and suddenly God speaks—no discernment necessary. But I think attention to the preceding narrative indicates that, in fact, this is the Antioch church seeking answers. Barnabas had retrieved Saul from Tarsus (Acts 11:25–26), and after a year of teaching in Antioch, they carried relief funds to the impoverished churches of Judea (Acts 11:27–30) and returned to Antioch (Acts 12:25). But it is still unclear how God’s word to Ananias concerning Saul would be fulfilled: “he is an instrument whom I have chosen to bring my name before Gentiles and kings and before the people of Israel” (Acts 9:15). The subsequent story of Peter’s interaction with Cornelius heightens the question. Peter’s testimony produces a striking conclusion: “And they praised God, saying, ‘Then God has given even to the Gentiles the repentance that leads to life'” (Acts 11:18). Yet, how will Saul participate in God’s mission among the Gentiles? It is reasonable to conclude that this question was on his congregation’s mind.

Sometimes (typically?), this is the nature of missional discernment. We know that God is up to something, perhaps in the life of a particular church member, but it’s unclear what or how to respond. Here is what the practice of listening in such moments looks like: worshiping the Lord and fasting. Saul is not left to discern his vocation on his own. The life of the worshiping community is the context of discernment. Through communal discernment, the church prepares to hear the Spirit speak.

Plural leadership is another important feature of the communal practice: “Now in the church at Antioch there were prophets and teachers” (Acts 13:1). To a superficial reading of the text, this comment might look like an unrelated piece of information. Not so. The spiritual gifting of these members of the body is a vital aspect of the community’s discernment. Paul later identifies “the discernment of spirits” (1 Cor 12:10) as a spiritual gift, which informs our understanding of John’s exhortation, “Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God; for many false prophets have gone out into the world. By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God.” (1 John 4:1–3). If it seems that “the Holy Spirit said” (Acts 13:2) refers to an indisputable, audible voice from heaven, consider carefully who hears the Spirit speak and what the confirmation of such messages looks like in the New Testament. The word comes through the prophets and is subject to the discernment of the community (1 Cor 14:29) according to the apostolic teaching concerning Jesus. Hence, the presence of recognized prophets and teachers is essential to the community’s perception of the Spirit’s word in Acts 13. In no sense is discernment left to the individual!

Immediate obedience to the Spirit’s command does not follow. Instead, the church continues “fasting and praying” (Acts 13:3). It may look like the church was merely fasting and praying for the missionaries and their success, but given their responsibility to discern the spirits and confirm the prophetic word, I’m convinced these practices are another aspect of their discernment. In other words, they do not lay their hands on Saul and Barnabas and send them off until they have finished discerning that their commission is from God.

This example of discernment guards us against two errors. The first is to imagine that discernment happens in isolation from the life of the community. Saul does not take Ananias’s initial prophetic word and set out on his own. Years pass before it becomes clear what he should do, and God’s purposes become evident in the context of communal worship, fasting, and prayer. The second is to think that all the church needs is (1) a sense that an endeavor (say, witness to the Gentiles) is good and (2) a willing participant. The community might easily have made plans based on these data. Peter’s testimony concerning Cornelius would certainly have been known to them after Saul and Barnabas’s trip south. It is hard to imagine that Saul had not shared his experience, including Ananias’s words. Isn’t this enough information? Is discernment necessary? Evidently so. We do well to heed the example of the Antioch church.

Discernment through Testimony and Dialogue

Then certain individuals came down from Judea and were teaching the brothers, “Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved.” And after Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and debate with them, Paul and Barnabas and some of the others were appointed to go up to Jerusalem to discuss this question with the apostles and the elders. So they were sent on their way by the church, and as they passed through both Phoenicia and Samaria, they reported the conversion of the Gentiles, and brought great joy to all the believers. When they came to Jerusalem, they were welcomed by the church and the apostles and the elders, and they reported all that God had done with them. But some believers who belonged to the sect of the Pharisees stood up and said, “It is necessary for them to be circumcised and ordered to keep the law of Moses.” . . . The apostles and the elders met together to consider this matter. After there had been much debate, Peter stood up and said to them. . . . The whole assembly kept silence, and listened to Barnabas and Paul as they told of all the signs and wonders that God had done through them among the Gentiles. After they finished speaking, James replied. . . . “Therefore I have reached the decision.” . . . Then the apostles and the elders, with the consent of the whole church, decided to choose men from among their members and to send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas. . . . For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us. . . .
Acts 15:1–28 (NRSV)

Acts 15 offers an example (the New Testament example?) of theological discernment—a communal process of determining what the church should affirm regarding a disputed matter. Protestants are prone to imagine that Paul’s seemingly independent theological work is paradigmatic, and many have concluded that the presence of Apostles at the gathering portrayed in Acts 15 makes it inimitable for the church in later centuries. Yet, these conclusions are hardly necessary, and there is much to learn about discernment from this passage.

I identify eleven elements of the discernment process in this story:

Dissension and debate (Acts 15:2). Participants in God’s mission dispute a traditional understanding of God’s will in light of their experiences. Dissension and debate are not a problem. Indeed, in this story, they are necessary and, in retrospect, vindicated dimensions of the church’s theological growth.
Appointment of representatives (Acts 15:2). The church designates spokespersons who can represent the dissenting position well in the broader dialogue about this issue. This is a model of neither open debate nor interpretive autonomy. Instead, representation and theological leadership are paradigmatic.
Open testimony about God’s work (Acts 15:3). The delegates speak openly about their understanding on the way to the meeting. Again, there is no evidence that doing so is problematic. Neither those teaching the traditional perspective in v. 1 nor those sharing their perspective on the way to the meeting are deemed divisive. Silence is not a virtue.
Hospitality (Acts 15:4). The church and its leaders welcome the dissenters and allow their testimony. The practice of “welcome” is profoundly important. Notably, it is not necessary to welcome those who hold the conventional understanding since they already have representation among the leadership (Acts 15:1, 5).
Open debate (Acts 15:5). Just as the delegates of the dissenting position are free to state their position ahead of the formal meeting of leaders, the traditionalists are free to assert their understanding publicly. Hospitality does not mean acquiescence. This says nothing about their manner of speech, which was presumably Christlike.
Leaders meeting together (Acts 15:6). The leadership gathers purposefully to give the matter careful consideration. Already, we see elders in addition to apostles involved in this process, suggesting the role of elders subsequently. Regardless of one’s understanding of apostleship, then, Acts 15 offers a model for discernment among church leaders.
Focused testimony about “all the signs and wonders that God had done through them” (Acts 15:7–12). Peter, Barnabas, and Paul offer their testimony to God’s work. The crux of the matter is what God has done—the perceptions of participants in God’s mission. Notably, the traditional perspective needs no further defense; it is a given.
Silence and listening (Acts 15:12). Those gathered to discern God’s will “kept silence and listened.” The practices of silence and listening are vital to the process. Listening here does not mean simply allowing speech but giving heed. There is no possibility that Peter was the only Jerusalem leader who initially held a traditional perspective, otherwise the discernment process would have been unnecessary for the gathered leaders. Again, the conventional understanding was a given. Regardless of these leaders’ prior beliefs, they made space for testimony and genuinely listened.
Leadership in conclusion-drawing (Acts 15:13–21). The apostle James draws a conclusion. Since Luke is not narrating a mimeographic account of the episode, it is possible that other leaders weighed in before James spoke. But the story as we have it highlights his role as he interprets the dissenters’ testimony according to his understanding of Scripture. Presumably, he plays this role in virtue of his recognized gifts, but the evident qualification is a deep familiarity with Scripture that allows him to perceive the evidence of God’s work without prejudice regarding the conventional understanding of God’s will. Here is someone evidently formed by Jesus’s subversive teaching of Scripture.
Consent in conclusion-drawing (Acts 15:22). The whole church consents to the promulgation of the leaders’ conclusion. It might seem that the church’s consent refers only to the selection of messengers. To the contrary, it refers to the church’s role in confirming the decision, without which it would not be disseminated. There is no description of what this level of participation looked liked (further debate, mere conformity, reluctant submission, consensus?), but it is part of the process. In addition to the role of theological leaders, there is a place for the wider church’s involvement. Indeed, it is possible that “the whole assembly” (Acts 15:12) included a public audience; there is certainly nothing to suggest the discussion was a closed-door meeting of leaders whose decisions were delivered to the church.
Clear communication of essentials (Acts 15:23–29). The leadership composes a statement that represents their conclusion. There is a great deal going on in this step of the process. First, the selection of representatives in addition to Paul and Barnabas safeguards them from suspicion of misrepresenting the conclusion. Second, the letter recognizes the conflict forthrightly, including the role of those who had made the initial Judaizing claims. Third, the phrase “it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit” (Acts 15:28) identifies the decision-making process as a matter of spiritual discernment. More clearly than in Acts 13:1–3, the opinion attributed to the Spirit is a function of discernment. Fourth, the specific recommendations are stated as minimally as possible: “to impose on you no further burden than these essentials” (Acts 15:28). Fifth, the specific recommendations represent a creative interpretation of Leviticus 17–18, which provides guidance for Gentiles living among God’s people. There is much to say about this interpretative ingenuity, not least its relevance to this discernment process, but the point here is that the conclusion communicated is based on a biblical idea of “essentials.”

No doubt, more can be added to this sketch of discernment processes in the New Testament. And I most definitely do not wish to suggest that the examples in these passages serve as some sort of authorized template for church practice. But they do highlight the key claim I am forwarding: discernment is communal. Barton offers a compelling account of the personal, internal dimensions of discernment. I fear, however, that this account misses the gist of discernment from a New Testament perspective.

Finally, it is important to note that the passages surveyed here are inseparable from the story of the church’s participation in God’s mission to redeem all nations. Taking a missional approach to the Bible, it is impossible to sideline these texts in the portrayal of Christian discernment. Undoubtedly, Christians seek to discern God’s will in personal matters that seem distant from Paul’s vocation or the church’s theological understanding of Gentiles’ relationship to the law. But this is an illusion. If, as missional theology affirms, the church is definitionally the people called to participate in God’s mission, what might a church member discern personally that is not necessarily related to this calling? This perspective leads to the second deficiency of Barton’s chapter on discernment: a robustly missional account of the process. My next post in this series will propose a model of missional discernment that addresses this shortcoming.

Preaching and Teaching (January–June 2023)

Recent months have occasioned a variety of preaching and teaching opportunities. In addition to my regular responsibilities at Stones River Church, I was invited to preach in the interim rotation at the Church of Christ at Cedar Lane (Tullahoma, TN), my wife’s childhood home church, which formerly oversaw our mission work in Peru. I’ll focus here, however, on ministry at SRC.

From Exodus to Hebrews

The winter and spring seasons at SRC were given to a series on the book of Exodus. Our shared pulpit model includes three preachers (Jon McPeters, John King, and me). We dedicated ourselves to exploring the meaning of Exodus for our church family. The book’s combination of narrative and law afforded an inspiring, bracing, sometimes perplexing meditation on the presence of God and the calling of God’s people.

As summer began, we embarked on a study of the book of Hebrews. So far, it has been a fitting, if challenging, sequel to Exodus. Last Sunday, I preached on Hebrews 5:11–6:12, the author’s stern pastoral condemnation of immaturity. Sometimes, being told to grow up is necessary. It’s a message I am trying to take to heart.

Identity and Dialogue

Sunday morning class recently transitioned from our study of Mark’s Gospel to a multi-week discussion of our congregational identity. Long-term members shared memories of formative or paradigmatic experiences. We endeavored to highlight what has really characterized our family through the decades. It turns out that a significant amount of trauma haunts the church’s collective memory. This is common for churches with our background (if you know, you know), but I was intrigued by the extent to which a search for positive indentifiers gave rise to stories about conflict, pain, and disappointment.

Along with the personal history of the church, questions arose regarding our connection to the tradition known as Churches of Christ. SRC is affiliated historically and officially (per our founding documents) with Churches of Christ, though we’re admittedly something of a black sheep in Murfreesboro. Over the years, the embrace of a more Spirit-centered attitude, the use of musical instruments in worship, and openness to female leadership in congregational life has resulted in condemnation and rejection from other Churches of Christ, and the pain of these public anathemas and privately fractured relationships has produced in some members a deep ambivalence about identifying with the tradition. I made a plea, nonetheless, to consider the inevitability of our theological DNA and to appreciate the best of the tradition. An overview of Discipleship in Community was useful for framing my perspective. It was fun to test drive the book in this way.

The question of who are are and who we are becoming will generate an ongoing conversation. But the identity discussion was only an interrim class as we prepared for our next major study. Through a survey of interests and preferences, we landed on the need to discuss how to have hard discussions. We hope this study, based on Christopher Smith’s book How the Body of Christ Talks, will equip us for discussing other, potentially volatile topics identified in the survey in a healthy, Christlike way. We are a couple of chapters in, and I’m really excited about the potential for growth this study promises.

Spiritual Disciplines

Our Wednesday night gathering has been focused on Ruth Hailey Barton’s book on spiritual disciplines, Sacred Rhythms. We divvied up the chapters and have taken three or four weeks on each one, allowing time to practice these disciplines collectively and process the experiences. So I’ve been mostly a participant, which was a nice respite, though I’ve been leading us through the chapter on discernment for the last few weeks. I’ll save my reflections on discernment for another post and just say here that I’m grateful to be part of a community that seeks a spiritual life together. Resisting the individualism that infects American Christianity like a cancer requires intentionality and commitment.

Welcome to The YARD

How does a church become missional?

That question motivates my work at Stones River Church (SRC) as much as anything else. Others wiser and more experienced than I have been attempting to answer it for some time, and their writings are indispensable. But practical, feasible, local answers are elusive. Inertia is monstrously powerful, and becoming is a kind of miracle.

I am convinced, nonetheless, that part of the answer definitely lies in the practice of hospitality. This practice is complex, but let me focus on its essence. By hospitality, I mean making space for others. As God has opened the divine life for the sake of communion with humanity (John 17:20–23), the church community that opens its life for the sake of communion with its neighbors takes a step in the direction of participation in God’s mission. But opening congregational life means, concretely, making space—actual space—for that fellowship. Doing so in contextually meaningful ways is full of challenges. Moreover, making space specifically for neighbors who live on the margins of society, as Jesus so often encourages us to do, entails special difficulties.

To my delight, SRC has chosen to make such a space. As I mentioned in a previous update, we have named this space The Yard because our property includes, well, a yard where we stage a great deal of hospitality. In the last year, it has become a place where many of Murfreesboro’s recently incarcerated and homeless know they are welcome. Adjacent to the green space is a house called Taylor Place whose kitchen, living room, and bathrooms are regularly open to these neighbors.

Partnering in Hospitality

The most significant development in the last six months is a partnership with Sanctuary Homeless Refuge, a mobile food ministry that now provides meals at The Yard twice a week. The chief protagonist of this ministry is Randy Lee Bowen (affectionately called LeeBo). He collects and prepares the donations of a number of Nashville-area businesses that make these meals a delicious blessing. The Friday “Grillin’ and Chillin'” events are especially popular. Sanctuary pulls up a trailer equipped with three large grills, and a cookout of epic proportions ensues. We serve steak, chicken, pork chops, sausages, and more, accompanied by nutritious and filling sides cooked by Leebo and his team.

Two other partnerships have arisen from SRC making space. The first is with Tammy Poteete. She has served the homeless for many years in Murfreesboro and recently founded Bethesda House Ministries to further this work. In a wonderful turn of events, Tammy and Leebo were married last month! Our second partnership is with Carolyn Young, who has been independently preparing and serving meals for the homeless for twenty years. She cooks week in and week out with extremely limited resources, and she knows virtually everyone on the street in Murfreesboro. Her help has been vital, and, happily, she now attends SRC on Sunday mornings.

Tammy, Leebo, Carolyn, and me on a frigid winter day

Transitional Ministry

In regard to transitional ministry, Julie Hadlock continues to lead us in service to neighbors recently released from prison. (Last year, Tennessee designated anyone who has been labeled as a felon, a convict, a criminal, an offender, or a parolee as “justice-involved individuals.” This strikes me as a silly bit of jargon, which I will henceforth ignore.) We have placed a number of parolees in transitional housing and helped them restart their lives. Julie’s energy, dedication, and sacrifice are an inspiration. I have learned a great deal from her and give thanks to God that she has joined us at The Yard.

Me and Julie after a meeting with community leaders at the American Job Center

The Shed continues to funnel a tremendous amount of donated clothing and basic resources to our neighbors. Julie not only curates and distributes these donations, she also manages the volunteers who regularly organize The Shed. She has secured the donation of a second storage building, which is soon to be installed at The Yard. It will serve as an intake facility, so the current building can function solely as a storefront.

The Shed serves both homeless and recently incarcerated neighbors. It is open to those who come for meals at The Yard, but it also provides necessaries for those seeking to begin again after prison. Despite the frequent overlap of these two groups, since many homeless people find themselves under arrest at some point, those who come out of prison are often hesitant to affiliate with the homeless. They seek, instead, to live in transitional housing, find a job, and make their own way as soon as possible. Still, some show up for a meal, particularly within one or two days after their release. Increasingly, these connections allow us to help neighbors in transition find housing and work. One recent example is a young man named Charlie. With nowhere else to go, he came to The Yard for a meal. As I talked with him, it was clear that he desired to stay sober and pursue a new life. I connected him with Julie, and he is now living in a transitional house and working a steady job. He has attended SRC a few times. Thanks be to God for such opportunities. May our endeavor to make space be a witness to God’s kingdom!

Not all stories are so happy. I met Brittany inside the workhouse, the low-security facility to which well-behaved inmates transition before release. After her release, she began working at The Yard under Julie’s guidance. Hers was a joyful presence, and she was eager to serve others in Jesus’s name. But after a few weeks, she tragically overdosed and died. This loss is hard to express. Too many who find themselves in the criminal justice system cannot escape the cycles that resulted in their incarceration. Brittany was a friend and colleague. We mourn with her family and long for the redemption that can save us all from our addictions.

Thanks be to God, who gives us hope in every circumstance and calls us to make space for our most vulnerable neighbors. And thanks to all who support this good work.

Discipleship in the Gospels: Following Jesus

Discipleship in the Gospels is more than “being a Christian.” Putting it this way grants a notion of being a Christian that falls short. I don’t see a better way to speak about Christianity today. The reality is, many consider themselves Christians who have never been discipled, never considered the difference between discipleship and church membership, and never taken up the cross to follow Jesus. No doubt, this assertion sounds harsh. But can any other conclusion stand up to the witness of the Gospels? Perhaps the call to discipleship is harsh in some fundamental sense; it is certainly a narrow way. It is gracious too. I take this tension seriously but endeavor in this post to represent what following Jesus means in the Gospel stories.

Two key words guide this study: the noun disciple (mathētēs) and the verb to follow (akoloutheō). Other words are relevant, but these two terms dominate the narratives. The tension between discipleship and Christianity that I’ve identified is already evident in the various uses of both terms. Of course, the term Christian postdates the Gospel stories (Acts 11:26), so the point is not to defend an argument about the distinction between Christian and disciple. Rather, I’m arguing that a theology of discipleship should begin with an understanding of the difference between a discipleship that follows Jesus to the cross and a Christian self-identification that follows Jesus only so far.

Becoming a Disciple

The noun disciple appears 261 times in the New Testament: 72 in Matthew, 46 in Mark, 37 in Luke, 78 in John, and 29 in Acts. The cognate verb to be a student / to cause one to be a student (mathēteuō) appears 4 times: 3 in Matthew and 1 in Acts.

These data don’t tell us much, but they do suggest that the notion of discipleship is not only core to the Gospels and Acts, but it is so in a way that contrasts with the rest of the New Testament. I leave speculation about why the words above do not figure in the lexicon of Paul and the rest of the New Testament writers for a later moment. The present task is to explore the usage of this terminology and its implications. To this end, I forumulate some broad categories of usage and focus particularly on what they might indicate about the differences between various kinds of “discipleship” and about the process of becoming a “true” disciple. My argument is that this process of becoming is itself the essence of true discipleship.

Disciples in the Broadest Sense

All of the Gospels bear witness to the notion of people attending in a general sense to the teachings of Jesus. All refer to “his disciples” as a large, ambiguous group of adherents, particularly early in the Gospel narratives. As Jesus’s ministry begins, he teaches and baptizes many. John tells us, “Now when Jesus learned that the Pharisees had heard, ‘Jesus is making and baptizing more disciples than John’—although it was not Jesus himself but his disciples who baptized—he left Judea and started back to Galilee” (John 4:1–3). This text presents a few key points. (1) Jesus made “disciples” in a recognizable sense comparable to other such groups. (2) Discipleship to Jesus entailed not only learning but also a commitment embodied in baptism. (3) Disciples of Jesus participated in the process of making more disciples.

The convention of “discipleship” is further recorded in references to John’s and the Pharisees’ disciples in all four Gospels (Matt 9:14; 11:2; 14:12; 22:16; Mark 2:18; 6:29; Luke 5:33; 7:18; John 1:35, 37; 3:25; 9:27). In this sense, discipleship signifies adherence to a school of thought and practice. Hence, when the Pharisees refer to themselves as disciples of Moses (John 9:27), the implication is devotion to their particular interpretive tradition in contrast with Jesus’s teaching. Early in the narrative arc of the gospel stories, therefore, various references to “his disciples” depict a seemingly large and growing group of adherents to Jesus’s teachings about religious practices like table fellowship, prayer, sabbath-keeping, and ritual purification (see Mark 2:16, 18; 3:23; 6:1; 7:2, 5; and pars.).

Even by the time of Jesus’s entry into Jerusalem toward the end of the story, Luke refers to “the whole multitude of the disciples” (Luke 19:37). Notably, John also entertains the notion of a “secret” disciple whose “fear” prevents open devotion (John 19:38; cf. 3:1). In its broadest usage, then, disciple refers to a significant number of adherents to Jesus’s teaching with varying degrees of commitment.

Yet, the difficulty of Jesus’s teaching has a winnowing effect throughout the story, and some identified as disciples are faced with critical moments of decision. Matthew, for example, records two dramatic exchanges: “A scribe then approached and said, ‘Teacher, I will follow you wherever you go.’ And Jesus said to him, ‘Foxes have holes, and birds of the air have nests; but the Son of Man has nowhere to lay his head.’ Another of his disciples said to him, ‘Lord, first let me go and bury my father.’ But Jesus said to him, ‘Follow me, and let the dead bury their own dead'” (Matt 8:19–22). Both of these followers are called disciples, suggesting an initial decision, but Jesus confronts them with a secondary decision in view of an unfolding understanding of his way of life. The implication is that discipleship in the broadest sense is a status that depends on an ongoing deepening of commitment.

John captures this dynamic most directly in the statement that, after a particularly difficult teaching, “many of his disciples turned back and no longer went about with him” (John 6:66). Certainly, then, the Gospels use disciple in a way that encompasses those who will follow Jesus only so far. This is, of course, true of all the disciples in the end. Save perhaps a core group of women (see below), all abandon Jesus upon his arrest (represented paradigmatically in Peter’s denials; Mark 14:66–72 and pars.). The cross is the ultimate moment of decision for everyone who would be a disciple.

Accordingly, the most pivotal text in this discussion is Mark 8:34 (and pars.): “He called the crowd with his disciples, and said to them, ‘If any want to become my followers, let them deny themselves and take up their cross and follow me.'” The NRSV has rendered the phrase thele opisō mou akolouthein (“wants to follow after me”) as “want to become my followers,” adding with “become” a sense of process that applies even to the disciples. (Matthew and Luke vary the verbiage for “follow” but phrase the assertion in essentially the same way.) In my view, this is entirely appropriate because the cross poses the question of a decision that even those who identify as disciples must answer. To “take up their cross,” Luke adds the phrase kath’ hēmeran (“daily”), further heightening the sense of an ongoing process. All who are “disciples” in the broadest sense must decide whether they will truly follow Jesus and, on a daily basis, make that choice again.

Disciples in Contrast to Others

Mark 8:34 encapsulates three distinctions between “disciples” and others interested in Jesus to a limited extent: (1) disciples in contrast to the crowd that also “follows” Jesus; (2) the twelve disciples (aka the apostles) in contrast to other disciples; and (3) the disciples who take up their cross in contrast with those to do not. These distinctions are more numerous than the broader usage of disciple and establish the church’s more limited understanding of discipleship in light of the whole gospel story (Jesus’s life, death, resurrection, and ascension).

The Disciples and the Crowd

Mark notes that Jesus summons both the crowd and the disciples for the crucial teaching in 8:34. The discussion of commitment and baptism above already marks a difference between those who commit to Jesus as rabbi and those who do not. Yet, the Gospels are full of references to those who follow Jesus in order to hear his teaching in contrast to the disciples. The Sermon on the Mount begins: “When Jesus saw the crowds, he went up the mountain; and after he sat down, his disciples came to him” (Matt 5:1; cf. Luke 6:17). One might read “the crowd” and “his disciples” as one and the same in this case, but it is clear that a multitude of people who were not his disciples regularly followed Jesus throughout his ministry. For example, “the crowds” are the thousands miraculously fed after extensive teaching (Matt 14:15, 19, 22; 15:32, 36 and pars.), while the disciples are those who participate in feeding them. Likewise, there is a distinction between the disciples and the “tax collectors and sinners” with whom Jesus eats (Matt 9:10–11 and pars.). And again, Jesus marks a difference between the crowds’ and the disciples’ identification of Jesus (Luke 9:18 and pars.; Mark and Matthew refer to “the people” rather than the crowds). Over and over in the Gospels, this distinction stands.

The Twelve and the Rest

From among the disciples, Jesus chooses twelve to be “apostles” (sent ones) (Luke 6:13). These are distinguished from the “great crowd of the disciples” (Luke 6:17). Mark adds that they are given “authority over the unclean spirits” (Mark 6:7; cf. 3:15), and Matthew expands the description to “authority over unclean spirits, to cast them out, and to cure every disease and every sickness” (Matt 10:1). They are, in other words, commissioned to extend Jesus’s kingdom ministry. Matthew uniquely refers to them as “the/his twelve disciples” (Matt 10:1; 11:1; 20:17; cf. “the eleven disciples” in 28:16). These chosen ones are paradigmatic disciples. Jesus later commissions seventy others (Luke 10:1) in similar fashion, but the twelve have a permanent special status (see also the eleven in Acts 1:13 and the addition of Matthias in Acts 1:26).

At various moments in the Gospels, however, it is difficult to discern whether “the/his disciples” refers to the twelve or the larger group. But the situation often suggests the twelve are in view: they can fit in a fishing boat, the upper room, or other small settings (Matt 8:23; 14:26; 16:15; 26:8; 17–19, 26, 35, 36, 40, 45, 56 and pars.) or they are in private conversation with Jesus (Matt 13:10, 36; 15:12; 17:10, 13, 19; 24:3 and pars.). All of these circumstances betoken a key characteristic that Mark highlights: they are called “to be with him” (Mark 3:14) in some special sense. This phrase speaks of intimacy that the rest of the disciples do not have.

At the same time, the Gospels present the twelve not as categorically different than but as representative of all who would draw near to Jesus. Following the biblical pattern of election—quintessentially manifest in the call of Abraham, who received blessing in order that all nations might be blessed (Gen 12:1–3)—the twelve are chosen to become disciples in a deeper sense in order others might become disciples. So Mark completes his depiction of apostleship: “to be with him, and to be sent out to proclaim the message, and to have authority to cast out demons” (Mark 3:14–15). To be with him and to be sent out is the paradigm of discipleship that the twelve embody.

Cruciform Discipleship

The final distinction intensifies our notion of discipleship one step further. As I’ve already argued, Jesus’s teaching about the cross marks the critical distinction between disciples who ultimately follow Jesus and those who do not. The linguistic data of the Gospels indicate that there is no point in claiming the latter are not actually disciples. Delimiting our language in that way is a handy shortcut, but it ignores biblical terminology. The deeper question is which use of the term informs the church’s theology of discipleship. I began with a distinction between “being a Christian” and discipleship that assumes a limited use of disciple, though not an absolute restriction of the language (as though anyone could practically arbitrate such a restriction!). I am after a theology of discipleship that persuasively identifies the meaning of “true” discipleship in the church’s contemporary language. The discussion hinges on what true signifies in this sentence.

John provides a handle on what true discipleship means in contrast with mere belief in Jesus: “Then Jesus said to the Jews who had believed in him, ‘If you continue in my word, you are truly my disciples'” (John 8:31). One may be truly Jesus’s disciple, and the criterion for deciding the point is “continuing” (menō) in Jesus’s “word” (logos). There is much to unpack regarding sin and freedom in this passage, but the saying establishes a critical distinction between belief and discipleship.

And again, John asserts, “‘By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another'” (John 13:35). Here as well, Jesus’s teaching (“a new command;” John 13:34) is the condition of discipleship—not assent but a practical way of life. This is a profoundly useful criterion because it allows us to pose a decisive question: can there be such a thing as an unloving disciple of Jesus? Finally, Jesus asserts, “My Father is glorified by this, that you bear much fruit and become my disciples” (John 15:8). Once more, the notion of “becoming” resounds in connection with discipleship. Being a disciple follows from bearing fruit. Fruitless disciples, who do not “abide” (menō) in Jesus, are cast away, whereas those in whom his “words” (hrēma in v. 7; cf. logos in v. 3) abide accordingly abide in his love. This “word” about love binds together all of these teachings on discipleship and serves as John’s version of taking up the cross: “‘This is my commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you. No one has greater love than this, to lay down one’s life for one’s friends'” (John 15:12–13). Denying self and taking up the cross become laying down one’s life for others in John’s Gospel. The logic of the Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke), in which Jesus “gives his life a ransom for many” (Mark 10:45), resounds in John’s story as a way of life for disciples who must lay down their lives for others in order to abide in Jesus’s word.

Laying down one’s life has economic implications. All three Synoptics record Jesus’s teaching about the difficulty of entering the kingdom while holding on to riches. As a representative of the disciples’ desperation, Peter declares, “Look, we have left everything and followed you” (Matt 19:27 and pars.). Evidently, this sacrifice entails property, family, and livelihood (Matt 19:29 and pars.). Among the Synoptics, Luke especially emphasizes such cruciformity (cross-shaped-ness): “‘Whoever comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters, yes, and even life itself, cannot be my disciple. Whoever does not carry the cross and follow me cannot be my disciple. . . . So therefore, none of you can become my disciple if you do not give up all your possessions'” (Luke 14:26–27, 33; cf. Matt 10:37–38; John 12:25). True discipleship, apparently, entails a death to self that results in loving Jesus and others at the cost of everything one possesses, including family and livelihood. Cruciform discipleship means nothing less.

Obviously, not all who are called disciples (much less believers) in the Gospels meet this standard. And the point of emphasizing the characteristics of cruciform discipleship is not to cast judgment on or discourage those who are at another point in the discipleship process. The point is that discipleship is a process aimed at cruciformity. Therefore, cruciformity is the standard of true discipleship defined in terms of its aim.

Following and Following

The uses of the verb to follow in the Gospels can be organized in the same way as the noun disciple, highlighting the difference between the crowd that follows Jesus, the disciples who follow Jesus’s teachings broadly, and the disciples who follow Jesus to the cross and beyond.

First, the word that characterizes the crowd’s relationship to Jesus is follow (e.g., Matt 4:25; 8:1; 12:15; 14:13; 19:2; 20:29; 21:9 and pars). Evidently, this relationship is, to some extent, about seeking the healing and blessing of the kingdom that he manifested and, to some extent, about responding to this benefit (e.g., Matt 9:27; 20:34).

Second, other references to “following” seem to apply to the “many” who comprise the broader group of disciples (Mark 2:15). These are “his disciples” in general (Mark 6:1). To them Jesus speaks publically about the cost of following him (Matt 8:19; 22 and pars.). The inner group of disciples identify this broader group as those who follow “us” (Mark 9:38; Luke 9:49). For Mark, “those who followed” contrast with the twelve (Mark 10:32). For John, this broader group includes “whoever” follows Jesus (John 8:12; 12:26) and recognizes the shepherd’s voice (John 10:4, 27).

Third, the disciples called directly by Jesus are commanded to “follow” him (Matt 4:20, 22; 9:9 and pars.). Likewise, the demands of cruciformity are expressed in terms of following (Matt 10:38; 16:24; 19:21, 27 and pars.). And John extends the notion of following to a figurative post-crucifixion notion (13:36–37). John’s account of Peter’s restoration accordingly includes the personal command, “Follow me!” (John 21:19, 22).

Female “Followers”

Before offering some concluding reflections, Jesus’s female followers deserve comment because they are an important use case regarding the intersection of disciple and follow. Jesus, as a first-century rabbi, is famously unconventional in his relationship to women, at times astonishing “the disciples” (John 4:27). Many read these stories as evidence that Jesus subverted established Judaistic gender roles, opening the church to a notion of discipleship without gender distinctions and even to female leadership among his followers. Others note that his selection of male apostles is conventional and highlight the fact that no women are explicitly called disciples in the Gospels.

The evidence following the Gospels is mixed. On the one hand, male leadership is predominant in the first-century church, and a patriarchal model emerges subsequently. On the other hand, an inclusive notion of discipleship indisputably prevails (Acts 2:17–18; Gal 3:28), and women serve in leadership roles—Priscilla (Acts 18:26), Phoebe (Rom 16:1), and Junia (Rom 16:7) to name a few. So what does the language of discipleship in the Gospels indicate?

First, women repeatedly manifest exemplary faith in the Gospels (Matt 9:22; 15:28; 26:7 and pars.). The theological significance of faith in Christian theology must inform our understanding of what these passages mean. All disciples are meant to learn from them. Given that there is a variety of uses of “to follow” in the Gospels, faith in Jesus undoubtedly plays an important role in distinguishing between them.

Second, a key group of women figures prominently in the category of followers in contrast to the crowd (Matt 27:55 and pars.). This group is uniquely described as providing financial support for Jesus’s ministry. These women are, in turn, those whom Jesus chooses to proclaim the resurrection to apostles (Luke 24:10 and pars.), making them not only the first preachers of the gospel but also reordering their relationship to the twelve in an astonishing way. Notably, the twelve refer to them as “women of our group” (Luke 24:22).

Third, Jesus treats women as disciples. Perhaps most tellingly: “And pointing to his disciples, he said, ‘Here are my mother and my brothers!'” (Matt 12:49 and pars). He adds, “For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother” (Matt 12:50 and pars.). Jesus accordingly indicates that both women and men are “his disciples.” Mary Magdalene, in particular, “sat at the Lord’s feet” as a disciple (Luke 10:42) and, along with her sister Martha, refers to Jesus as “Teacher” (John 11:28; 20:16).

Despite these indications, the distinction between the twelve and “certain women” remains (Acts 1:14). But, obviously, the distinction between the twelve and all other disciples, regardless of gender, remains. What stands out is that these women alone are with the twelve in the aftermath of the resurrection. Like the apostles at the Last Supper, they are among the small group together in an upper room following Jesus’s ascension (Acts 1:13). They are part of the one hundred twenty believers to whom Peter preached (Acts 1:15). An inclusive vision of the church emerges at the beginning.

So what can we learn about the language of discipleship from Jesus’s female followers? (1) Disciples are those who demonstrate faith in Jesus. (2) Disciples are those who economically support Jesus’s ministry and proclaim his resurrection. (3) Disciples are those devoted to Jesus’s teaching, who do the will of the Father that Jesus reveals. (4) Disciples are those who remain prayerfully faithful to the crucified, resurrected, and ascended Jesus.

Sincere Discipleship

The Gospels demonstrate that the process of becoming is the essence of true discipleship. In view of John’s language, reference to “true” discipleship is justified, but perhaps it is better in the contemporary American context to speak of sincere discipleship. The cultural importance of sincerity is difficult to overstate. While the word connotes truth in provocative ways, it offers other semantic nuances that resonate with the idea of discipleship that the Gospels portray.

If discipleship in the broadest sense is an ongoing deepening commitment to Jesus, sincerity speaks of the personal nature of this commitment. It is not a binary, as many understand true/false to be. It is the quality of a disciple in process, one who truly seeks, who asks every day what it might mean to take up the cross here and now, who struggles and falls short but really seeks. So the ultimate decision to follow Jesus is not a single decision. It is ultimate because, every time, it is a life-and-death decision about the self in relation to others.

The apostles embody sincere discipleship. They not only respond to Jesus’s call but, through misunderstanding, frustration, fear, failure, and betrayal, draw near to him over and over in order to receive clarification, forgiveness, and renewed responsibility. This persistent seeking is our essential model of the process called discipleship. Those who follow Jesus to the end embark on a way of life characterized by love for Jesus and, therefore, love for others at the cost of everything else. Sincere discipleship is the relentless pursuit of this cross-shaped way of life.

So how should the church speak of discipleship? What do the Gospels tell us about the idea of being a disciple? The biblical language presents important distinctions without absolute categories. Many follow Jesus to some extent. Many who claim to be disciples do not follow Jesus when the cross looms. Many who falter do not come to Jesus for transformation. Yet, the point is not to draw lines for the purpose of judgment, much less exclusion. If discipleship is a process, Christians can easily admit that we are all in process. At the same time, the mere claim to be a Christian, a follower of Jesus, or a disciple is irrelevant if sincerity is the issue. We rightly ask ourselves whether we are engaged in a process of increasing cruciformity. And the church rightly speaks of discipleship in these terms. Self-denial, not self-identification, is the criterion for our use of discipleship language.

Walking in Prayer

Local Mission at Stones River Church

August–December 2022

As I mentioned in the previous post, a lot of the good things that have taken place at Stones River Church in the last year have grown out of a commitment to prayer. We’ve had dedicated seasons of prayer and fasting, but perhaps the most transformative practice has been prayer walking. We began by walking through the neighborhood around the church property, asking God to open our eyes to his presence, lead us into relationships, and give us opportunities to serve. This becomes a powerful discernment process as we debrief together after each walk.

Early on, our attention was drawn to the local elementary school, Mitchell-Neilson. I have to give credit to my wife Megan, who shared a strong spiritual perception that we should be engaging this school. Our little church has a disproportionate number of educators and school workers, and a significant overlap between our gifting, passion, and context quickly emerged. Through another church member, we made contact with the principle, Dr. Shields, and were immediately invited to bring our prayer walk into the hallways and classrooms of the school after hours. We began supporting the staff and faculty in a variety of ways, and a wonderful partnership has emerged.

Mitchell-Neilson is only a few blocks from the church building, and it happens to be the elementary school with the highest incidence of low-income and at-risk students in the Murfreesboro City system. A surprising number of the students’ families live in temporary housing (such as motels) and lack basic resources.

At the beginning of the school year, the principal and much of the faculty and staff attended SRC on Sunday morning to share their struggles and hopes. It was an astonishing time of dialogue and worship. We continue to be amazed by the opportunities to serve families in our immediate context that have arisen through this new relationship.

Jon McPeters (SRC preacher), Dr. Shields (Mitchell-Neilson principal), and me discussing the school’s needs

An example of our work with Mitchell-Neilson: We received an email early this semester requesting help with with an unplanned shortage of lunch monitors. We sent out a last-minute request to church members, and a handful of us were able to respond. (We can’t take pictures of the kids, but the photos below represent our response team’s effort.)

Our desire to is to support the teachers, faculty, staff, and students in such as away as to convey God’s love for them. We’ve helped with field day, read books to classes, and helped stock the Soar Store with items for rewarding student behavior. One of our favorite things to do is delivering surprise treats to the teachers’ lounge (since so many of our members are teachers, we know how much this is appreciated). Most recently, we delivered a delicious chips and dips buffet just before Thanksgiving break. My daughter Ana used her mad skills to ink the posters below.

More good things are in the works—look for future updates. In the meantime, join us in prayer for all of our Mitchell-Neilson friends. We’re so grateful to God for the open doors that have accelerated this ministry in ways would couldn’t have imagined a year and a half ago. We’re hopeful that trust will grow and deeper relationships will soon emerge.

Release to the Captives

Transitional and Homeless Ministry at Stones River Church

August–December 2022

When Julie Hadlock showed up at Stones River Church last year, we were in a season of prayer and discernment about our local participation in God’s mission. Julie is an expert in transitional ministry. Following her own release after eleven months in prison (a story that deserves its own telling), she dedicated herself to helping the formerly incarcerated transition into society. She came to SRC looking for a church home and a support system for her ministry. We became convinced that God was leading us to partner with Julie and, within a few months, decided to turn our largest storage building into a distribution center for clothing, hygiene kits, small appliances, sheets and blankets, and other essentials for rebuilding a life from scratch.

After clearing out the accumulation of decades, I dedicated much of my work in August to installing shelves, hanging wracks, lights, and ventilation. Then church members gathered to sort and organize donations.

Julie also began officing at the church. In the last few months, we—mostly Julie—have distributed hundreds of items. “The shed,” as we call it, has quickly become a key resource in Mufreesboro for those who come out of prison with nowhere else to turn for basic help, as well as other neighbors experiencing homelessness.

The overlap between these two groups is significant. Julie estimates that as much as 70% of the homeless population has recently been released from jail or prison. The street is an inevitable destination for many formerly incarcerated persons. While a variety of organizations also serve these populations, our help is uniquely free of charge. This is a vital issue for Julie, who knows personally how difficult it is to earn an income as a felon.

I’ve been learning a lot from Julie. She is well-known in Murfreesboro and surrounding counties as a “fixer” for transitional ministries and other organizations that serve those coming out of prison, including the prison system itself. Many people trying to make their way in the aftermath of incarceration hear, “You should call Ms. Julie.” She is a consummate networker and a tireless, sacrificial friend to these neighbors.

This became clear to me in September as I joined her at a local resource fair hosted by another church’s prison ministry. Around twenty organizations had booths at this event. I marveled as client after client made their way to our table, having been told by others that they couldn’t help with clothing, housing, or employment but that Julie might have an idea. There are frustrating limitations on what we can do, but Julie often knows who else to contact or how to navigate the system.

Another dimension of Julie’s work is a weekly class taught to women at the county “workhouse,” as we call it. The Rutherford County Correctional Work Center is a low-security facility to which well-behaved inmates transition before release. Julie’s class, Concepts for Living, teaches basic life skills and similar topics. As Julie puts it, it’s about teaching what she learned from her grandmother. For example, in October Julie’s brother Wesley, a professional chef, was a guest speaker who taught about cooking. I’ve joined the class when appropriate and begun forming friendships with some of the women who will soon transition back into society. Our prayer is that some of these friends will work with us as they seek to rebuild their lives on the outside.

Another area of ministry is our broader work with the homeless population. The shed has afforded contact with many neighbors who “live outside.” In November, we hosted a special event to teach about the use of cast iron (many homeless folks burn up regular cookware by cooking over open flame). Julie’s brother, Wesley, and I cooked chili, and Wesley added cornbread and cobbler. Another collaborator, Ms. Carolyn, who has fed homeless neighbors in Murfreesboro for nineteen years, spread the word and brought carloads of folks to the church facilities. We hosted around forty friends. It was a bitterly cold night, and the teaching portion of the evening was abortive, but we had a great time eating together.

We’ve begun referring to the ministry as The Yard because the church property features a large yard, fire pit, and picnic tables located between the church building and our auxiliary building, a house called Taylor Place where our offices and kitchen facilities are located. The resource shed is located at The Yard, and many of our activities and conversations take place there.

Recently, one of our church members, Pat Thweatt, began offering sewing classes for formerly incarcerated friends. Then we transferred these classes to the workhouse. Most recently, we held a class on creating Christmas rag wreaths (mine turned out quite lovely!). Church members, including the youth group, spent hours cutting holiday fabric into thousands of strips for this purpose because bringing scissors into the workhouse isn’t possible. The project was a huge hit. (We can’t take pictures inside the prison, so you’ll have to make due with Pat, me, and Julie.)

Finally, I want to share the story of Albert. In November, prison officials approached Julie about an inmate who did not speak English (remember, she’s the fixer!). The workhouse staff includes no one who speaks Spanish, and they were struggling to help Albert, a Venezuelan, understand the release process. Julie brought me in to translate, and we met Albert the week before his release. We began learning his story and let him know we would be waiting for him when he came out.

On the day of his release, Julie and I met Albert in the workhouse lobby. Julie had arranged a spot for him in a transitional house, so I took him there to meet his housemates and then carried him to the Rutherford County Probation Office, but his case file had not been transferred to their office. So we left my number with his case officer and waited to hear. Afterward, we visited a local food pantry to get some staples. Julie held my hand through this process. Afterward, because of a language barrier, I ran point. I asked myself What would Julie do? and did my best to help.

Albert had been in prison for a few months on a misdemeanor vandalism charge. His story is stunning, so I’ll share it in some detail. He walked from Venezuela four times (having been caught and deported from other countries three times) before entering the United States. Of course, he hitched rides when possible, but yes, he walked from South America. This is not an uncommon story. I encourage you to ask yourself what would compel a person to make that journey.

Just before crossing the border, he was robbed and lost the contact information for those he knew in Texas. Therefore, once he entered the US, he immediately turned himself in to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). As a Venezuelan, he was given papers that put him on a path to political asylum. These papers leave him in legal limbo but ensure he will not be deported directly. ICE bought him a bus ticket to New York, where a large Venezuelan community resides. By the time he reached Nashville, he had decided to avoid the cold weather, so he got off the bus and made a plan to travel to Florida. He found work in Nashville for a couple of days, bought a bicycle, and set out for Atlanta, en route to Florida. If that sounds crazy, consider how biking from Tennessee to Florida compares to walking from Venezuela to Texas. He was biking down I24 near Murfreesboro when he came across an abandoned vehicle. He saw clothing inside and, being cold, decided to break a window to collect it. Police spotted him, and he was picked up and charged for the broken window.

When he came out of prison, only a few days remained before his ICE papers expired. So I took him to the immigration office in Nashville to confirm his status and take the next step. In March, he will be formally processed (fingerprints, etc.) and given a hearing date upon which a judge will decide his political asylum status.

In the meantime, we worked with the Spanish-speaking Seventh Day Adventist church that meets in the SRC building to find him a place to stay and a job. The transitional house costs $200 a week, and without income, this is not a long-term strategy (not to mention the language barrier; no one else in the house speaks Spanish). Unfortunately, job prospects for undocumented workers are scarce during the holiday season, and we were at a loss for what to do. So Albert decided to return to Nashville, where he had met other Venzuelans and found work. After two weeks in Mufreesboro, I dropped him off in Nashville to make his way. It was rainy, and I was loath to leave him on the street, but it was his decision. We gave him clothes, a blanket, and a hygiene kit, but it seemed like too little. Please pray for him and other “aliens and strangers” in our land. They depend on the Christlikeness of the church as they seek to make a life.

Stones River Updates

A New Logo

Let’s start with the least important thing. There are many “renovation” efforts afoot at Stones River Church. Among the relatively superficial changes in the queue, the first is a new logo.

Our preaching minister, Jon McPeters, and I led the charge on this process. Our feelings about spending time and money on a “look” are ambivalent. Such matters are superficial and, of course, ultimately unimportant. Yet, we agreed that it is worthwhile to take steps toward representing the vibrant life inside the church community through a renewal of our outward-facing symbols. Frankly, I think the new logo is pretty sweet (shout out to designer blakeoliver.co). The church website is next, and other improvements will follow.

Preaching and Teaching

It has been my privilege to share more of the preaching load in recent months. Jon is also a part-time employee of Stones River, and he does a great deal outside the pulpit, not least in disciple-making. So collaborating in this way has allowed him to invest more time in other endeavors while giving me the opportunity to encourage the church on a regular basis. It is a joy to proclaim the word of God, and I’m truly grateful for the opportunity to use my gifts in this way.

Let me also take the opportunity to advocate the “shared pulpit” model. It’s a blast to collaborate on the formation of a sermons series, but more importantly, I think the synergy of different strengths and perspectives is a blessing to the church. Something important happens when we regularly hear multiple voices.

I’ve also restarted Sunday morning Bible class, which had evaporated during the pandemic. For our first study, I’ve been teaching the evangelistic study guide titled Mark as Gospel that I drafted during our years in Peru. I have continued to refine it, and I’m thrilled to share it with the Stones River family. Happily, about a third of the church has shown up for class, and our time together has been a delight. (I plan eventually to publish the study guide, so if your church or Bible class is interested in the curriculum, please let me know.)

Reviving Wednesday Nights

A while back I was reflecting with one of my former grad. school companions, who is now a preaching minister, about the state of the “mid-week” meeting. We recalled feeling, as young ministry students, quite superior in our dismissivness toward the traditional requirement of Sunday and Wednesday evening meetings. For those of us who grew up with a sense that attendance was close to goliness, the critique was necessary. But at this point in our ministries, the deficit of community among most American Christians looms ominously. It’s hard to estimate what we would give for just 45 minutes more with our church family each week.

In the aftermath of Covid19, the feeling of disconnection was significant in our community. At the same time, God began to open doors into missional engagement in our neighborhood, and the need for more time together in prayer and planning became acute. So Megan and I determined to revive the mid-week meeting at Stones River. We began with a slow walk through David Fitch’s Faithful Presence: Seven Disciplines that Shape the Church for Mission.

During the Advent season we’re meditating on The Anticipated Christ: A Journey Through Advent and Christmas by Brian Zahnd.

Attendance has been modest. Once the weekly grind absorbs that time, it’s difficult to free it for something else. But the time together is imeasurably valuable. Going forward, we’ll continue to prioritize reflection on and equipping for participation in God’s mission.

Toward Evangelism

Jon and I have also dedicated a weekly nighttime outing to exploring spaces where people gather for community and conversation, namely, bars. In the days of craft beer’s ascendancy, this often means taprooms and brewhouses. I’m sure this seems suspect to many, but, for us, the critical question is where people actually gather in pursuit of human connection. The fact that craft culture has transformed some scenes into environments we actually enjoy is just a side benefit! We’ve spent a couple of months hopping from spot to spot in Murfreesboro, looking for opportunities and assessing challenges.

The upshot is our conclusion that we need to become “regulars” in a couple of places in order to foster consistent relationships. A plan is in the works, but I’ll leave details for the next update. For now, we ask for prayers as we seek to discover how to witness to the kingdom in places where loneliness and longing reign.

Discipleship Group

For me and Megan, one of the most vital spiritual practices is the formation of discipleship groups. I learned about discipleship groups from Mission Alive during our years in Pasadena (and recommend their training!). These groups entail a process of intentional formation as a community of missional followers of Jesus. We piloted a DGroup as members of Hollywood Church of Christ, and the experience was transformative. So we started a DGroup at Stones River a little over a year ago, and we’re now getting ready to multiply. That’s the hope anyway; these things are always tenuous.

To be clear, our discipleship group is not a church program. It’s more like an “underground” effort to foster a culture of authentic discipleship within the local congregation. The process involves a significant time commitment, and I find it best to make personal invitations that participants accept only after a forthright description of the cost. As the time frame of more than a year suggests, the journey is slow and demanding. Yet, debriefing conversations indicate that most find it well worth the sacrifice. As far as I can tell, turning the discipleship group into a church program would subvert its power. This percpetion deserves a post of its own, which I hope to write in due course. For now, I note that committing to explore a missional life together, regularly and peristently, produces something imcomparable to classes, small groups, and other such institutionalized efforts at facilitating an inclusive (read: low-commitment) process of spiritual formation. If “exclusivity” seems to be a problem, then recall that the way is narrow, and taking up the cross to follow Jesus is hardly attractive.

MTSU Students

Recently, Jon and I began a conversation with a small group of Middle Tennesse State University students about providing discipleship mentoring. Some of these students have begun attending Stones River on Sunday mornings, which has given us an opportunity to form relationships. We’re praying for a deepening of these spiritual friendships that will result in significant witness on campus. The prospect is exciting but uncertain. Our hope is that something substantial will materialize in the coming months. Join us in prayer!

Transitional Ministry, Homeless Ministry, and Other Local Mission

I’ll save the updates on these specific areas of work for dedicated posts. But here’s the link, as I see it, between these and everything above: altogether, we’re in the process of directing our shared life in Christ toward deeper participation in God’s mission. I am convinced that Jesus is leading SRC into the margins of our city where the least and the lost scrape by, into the lives of those for whom sincere friendship offers real hope, and into the places where the seams of community hang together by a few threads. This calling is fearful, and I’m struck again by how desperately we need the faithfulness of God, to whom belong the kingdom and the power and the glory in every age.