The third core value of the True to the Core program is discipleship.
When we examine the Bible we discover that the making of disciples was at
the center of Jesus’ mission.
The word ‘disciple’ dots the pages of the Gospels.
The Greek word translated ‘disciple’ is mathetes and literally means
learner. Lawrence Richards identifies the three primary ways the word was
used in the New Testament and how it may be used today:
“First, it identified followers of particular schools,
or traditions. It is often used in the Gospels in this sense—e.g., of
the disciples of the Pharisees; (Matt. 22:16; Mark 2:18; Luke 5:33) of the
disciples of John the Baptist (Matt. 11:2-7; Mark 2:18; Luke 5:33; John 1:35-37;
3:25).
“Second, mathetes identifies the twelve men whom Jesus
chose to be with him in the traditional relationship in which a rabbi in Israel
trained others. Typically we think of these twelve as ‘the disciples.’
“Third, the same word is used in the New Testament to describe
a wider circle of adherents to the movement led by Jesus. In some contexts
the word disciple seems to have the sense of ‘believer’ (John 8:31;
13:35; 15:8). But not all who are called “disciples” in the Gospels
had made a firm commitment to Jesus. In fact, many who were initially attracted
to Jesus and saw themselves as his adherents ‘turned back and no longer
followed him’ when they were confronted by difficult teachings (6:66).
After the Resurrection we do have one special use of disciple by Jesus himself,
which makes it clear that the weaker, general senses of this word are irrelevant
to Christian faith today. The living Christ told his followers, ‘Go and
make disciples of all nations’ (Matt. 28:19). In defining his term, Jesus
forever dismissed the notion that a disciple can be nothing more than a loose
adherent to Christ or his church. For Jesus said that disciples were to be
taught ‘to obey everything’ that he had commanded (v. 20). Discipleship
today is a matter of full commitment and obedience to our Lord” (Richards,
A Practical Theology of Spirituality, p. 222).
The mission of the church is clear: to make disciples. That
is why the mission of the Stillmeadow Church of the Nazarene is simply, “More
Disciples . . . Better Disciples.” The big question for me is not if,
or when, but how? What methodology should be implemented? Again, we look to
Jesus’ life and ministry for a discipleship model. It appears that Jesus’
“preferred method” was a small group. Jesus selected disciples from
among His followers. “He chose from them twelve, whom He named apostles”
(Luke 16:13-17; cf., Mark 3:13-19). From the biblical record of Jesus’
disciple-making methodology we observe, once again, the intentional, intense,
obedient, even habitual nature of His behavior.
Once again, as we turn to Richard Foster, we can identify the
convergence of two streams of Christian faith in the formation of smaller
groups for the purpose of discipleship: the Holiness Stream with its focus
on the inward re-formation of the heart and the development of holy habits
and the Evangelical Stream which focuses on “the proclamation of the
evangel, the good news of the gospel. We are enabled by the Power of God to
take the Word of the gospel into our hearts in such a transforming way that
others, seeing this, want it for themselves. This faith stream addresses the
crying need for people to see the good news lived and hear the good news proclaimed”
(Foster, Streams of Living Water, p. 187).
Discipleship, the third of the Five Core Values, has a significant
history in the Holiness tradition in general. In fact, small group discipleship
may have been Wesley’s greatest contribution to Christendom. As Wesley
once put it: “The gospel of Christ knows no religion, but social; no
holiness but social holiness. I mean not only that it cannot subsist so well,
but that it cannot subsist at all without society, without living and conversing
with others” (Wesley, Works, Vol. 14, p. 321). Randy Maddox observes:
“Of interest at the moment is the element of basic communal
support reflected in hymnic prayer that Wesley designated for the society
meetings:
Help us to help each other, Lord,
Each other’s cross to bear;
Let each his friendly aid afford,
And feel his brother’s care.
Help us to build each other up,
Our little stock improve;
Increase our faith, confirm our hope,
And perfect us in love”
(Maddox, Responsible Grace, p. 210).
Again, Yrigoyen contends that this type of communal support
was, for Wesley, one of the several means of sustaining grace, one of the
“main routes by which God works to nurture holiness” (Yrigoyen,
John Wesley: Holiness of Heart and Life, p. 41). Christian conference was,
for Wesley, an opportunity of joining in a small group for the purpose of
worship, Bible instruction and discovery, fellowship, and ministry, using
an Acts 2:44-47 model. Wesley believed these gatherings were a return to primitive,
New Testament Christianity and that spiritual growth is personal, but not
private. Holiness of heart and life cannot, according to Wesley, be developed
in isolation.
And so Wesley developed a pattern for discipleship by organizing
his adherents into societies, classes, and bands. Watson suggests that Wesley’s
organization “is the genius of Methodism. These meetings were regarded
by Wesley as the sinews of the Methodist movement, the means by which members
watched over one another in love. They were grounded in solid theological
principles which could readily be grasped, making them not only a point of
mutual accountability, but also a rich source of the gospel tradition”
(Watson, Covenant Discipleship, p. 18).
Basically, a society was composed of men and women who came
together weekly to pray, sing, and hear scriptural preaching. Since Wesley,
at the time of their formation, considered Methodism a movement within the
Church of England, the Methodist societies met on weekday mornings or evenings.
Meetings were usually led by the Wesleys or by one of the lay preachers. Wesley
developed “General Rules” to discipline the life of the societies.
Classes were smaller groups within a society. Each class had
about twelve members, met weekly, and was directed by a class leader who was
a committed layperson. These classes provided an intimate fellowship in which
members talked about their progress in holiness. Bands, on the other hand,
were “divided rather pragmatically according to the topography of the
society membership and the exigencies of available leadership” (Watson,
Covenant Discipleship, p. 94). Bands had even fewer members and had
greater expectations for their members because they were considered more spiritually
mature.
At all levels of Wesley’s organization for discipleship,
accountability to the commitments of discipleship were required. The smaller
the group, the greater the commitment to mutual accountability. Gregory Clapper
observes:
“In these small groups, repentance is made more permanent
in very real and concrete ways. Mutual trust, humility, and a loving sense
of being accountable to all of the members of the group were obviously important
to this kind of endeavor . . .” (Clapper, As If the Heart Mattered,
p. 93).
It was in these smaller groups that the Holiness Stream and
Evangelical Stream met one another for Wesley. Bishop Gerald Ensley made this
helpful assessment: Wesley reached converts through his preaching and discipled
them through his societies.
The Wesleyan-Holiness movement, until recently, abandoned this type of smaller
group emphasis and adopted a Sunday School paradigm. Teaching of the Word
was predominant with little emphasis on mutual accountability. However, in
the last twenty years, voices have emerged from our ranks, calling us back
to our Wesleyan roots and the formation of “wholistic smaller groups.”
The aforementioned Upward Call is probably the best example of this re-call.
In Part III: “Finding Companions on the Way,” the authors contend
that the holy life is a community affair.
“It would be a mistake to woodenly re-create every detail
of the Methodist class meeting. But the class meeting does remind us that
Christians today need more than worship services and Sunday School classes.
Face-to-face groups that provide instruction, acceptance, belonging, positive
accountability, open dialogue, and spiritual guidance are not peripheral spiritual
serendipities but are at the heart of the church’s mission. If our church
calendars must be shoved around in order to make room for face-to-face-meetings
then let the shoving begin” (Tracy, The Upward Call, p. 148).
This smaller group emphasis is growing within the Wesleyan-Holiness
movement, not only because of a growing number of Wesleyan-Holiness voices
calling us back to our Wesleyan roots, but also because of a growing corpus
of material being developed from within a number of Christian faith traditions.
Catholics and Protestants of various stripes are calling out to the Church
of Jesus Christ to reorganize itself into smaller groups for the commonwealth.
(For the full manuscript of this sermon
go to www.preachersmagazine.org and click on “Sermons”)
We are, as you know, taking a journey together through the life
of Jesus as recorded by Mark.
In the first part of his gospel, Mark introduces Jesus of Nazareth
to the world. Jesus begins His ministry of preaching and teaching . . . touching
and forgiving . . . healing and befriending sinners. And here’s a news
flash: Some liked it and many didn’t. In fact, the gospel liberated some
and infuriated others. And now, the rejection of Jesus’ message begins.
In fact, this section of Mark’s gospel, Mark 2:13 –
8:26, records a growing opposition to Jesus.
Today’s scripture lesson is the first in a series of what
I call “opposition stories.”
Pastor Bud, what are the scribes and Pharisees in opposition to? Well, simply
put, they, along with some of the original disciples, were in rigorous opposition
to Jesus’ rather bold outreach to sinners . . . the fact that Jesus welcomed
everyone . . . that Jesus made no distinction between persons . . . that Jesus
rejected the whole system of ranking and classifying persons . . . and that
Jesus did not seem to be afraid of being contaminated by sinners but instead
Jesus contaminated them with God’s grace and power. He accepted sinners
as they were, but He did not leave them as He found them. He transformed them
into authentic disciples.
As I studied this passage, I discovered 3 aspects of calling.
The Calling of Levi was:
III. A Call to Repentance
III. A Call to Discipleship
III. A Call to Reconcilation
Back in 1982, an Italian director named Frances Zeffirelli produced
and directed a movie called Jesus of Nazareth. The clip you are about to see
is from that film and it is my favorite scene in the film.
Let me set it up. Jesus has called Levi to become one of His
disciples. Peter and the rest of the disciples don’t like it, but Jesus
said “yes” to Levi’s party invitation. What Zeffirelli does
with the scene is absolutely brilliant. Listen to Jesus’ words and to
how Levi and Peter respond.
Folks, Jesus is calling us—you and me—to repent of
our sins, to lay down our nets, to leave everything and follow Him, and to
be reconciled to one another.
Jesus is still calling.
Jesus calls us!
