Sunday, October 22, 2006

How can something so right be so wrong?

Dr Robert E. Coleman author of The Master Plan Of Evangelism believes the International Churches of Christ (ICOC) have “twisted” his book despite mentioning in his book that ‘methods will vary’. The former ICOC’s legacy relied on a strong authoritarian leadership structure. “But people will be people”, he stated in an interview by Chris Lee (26th February 2002), “and they will twist anything. See, I do not see discipleship as a pyramid leadership structure; rather I encourage a servant-leadership model, based on the model of Jesus.”

However, some ICOC discipling churches in the post HKL era have embraced the disciple approach. Here, again the ‘destiny of multitudes hangs in the balance’. “That they will follow someone is certain” concludes Coleman in his final chapter of the Master Plan Of Evangelism, “but will he or she be one like themselves leading them only on into greater darkness? This is the decisive question of our plan of life.” [p.116]

Coleman’s major argument for implementing the disciple approach is found in the ‘primary sources’. “One has to go to the New Testament, and the Gospels in particular, to really see the plan of Jesus. They are after all the only eyewitness accounts that we have of the Master at work.” Here Coleman points to the way Jesus “lived and taught others so to live.” Coleman states: “Like any historical narrator, the Gospel writers paint a picture of the whole by elaborating upon a few characteristic persons and experiences, while bringing out certain critical points in the development of events.”

Coleman’s thesis does not rely much on ‘secondary materials’. “That is why the scriptural accounts of Jesus constitute our best, and only inerrant, Textbook on Evangelism.” Others have substantiated the disciple approach by incorporating ‘secondary materials’ such as the book of Acts and the Epistles, which mentions the ‘one another passages’. Lastly, infrequent reference to titbits found in the Old Testament that support the disciple approaches such as Jethro’s advise to Moses (Ex 18) springs to mind.

The philosophy of the disciple approach

The disciple approach as observed in Coleman’s The Master Plan Of Evangelism (Second Edition; 2000) sends out a signal that the modern church needs to be re-evaluated. Essentially everything in the congregation must revolve around ‘the Master’s view of the ministry’. However, ‘methods will vary.’ ‘The Master gives us an outline to follow, but he expects us to work out the details according to local circumstances and traditions. This demands every bit of resourcefulness that we have.’[p.108] Therefore, the disciple approach is not limited but open for any contemporary church. ‘Hence, Jesus did not urge his disciples to commit their lives to a doctrine, but to a person who was the doctrine, and only as they continued in his Word could they know the truth (John 8:31,32).’ [p.56]

The modern church lacks an effective leadership system

Supporters of the disciple approach believe they have rediscovered ‘the lost plan’ of Jesus method in making disciples. They describe Jesus ‘controlling method’ as ‘revolutionary’ when compared to the ‘lazy example’ of the modern church evangelistic strategy. The issue of evangelism and particularly methods of evangelism becomes the criteria in which the adherents of the disciple approach measure success. ‘Do we see an ever-expanding company of dedicated people reaching the world with the gospel as a result of our ministry? That we are busy in the church trying to work one program of evangelism after another cannot be denied. But are we accomplishing our objective? [p.19]

To them the modern churches have failed dismally. ‘It is time that the church realistically face the situation. Our days of trifling are running out. The evangelistic program of the church has bogged down on nearly every front, especially across the affluent Western world. In many lands the enfeeble church is not even keeping up with the exploding population.’ Many Christian denominations, if not all have failed to implement Jesus’ ‘controlling principles’ for evangelism. ‘Men were to be his method of winning the world to God.’ [p.27] Modern churches have failed to personalise Christianity by not focussing on a select few co-working along ‘with the pastor and church staff’ according to the ‘pattern of Jesus’. ‘Everything that is done with the few is for the salvation of the multitudes.’ [p.34]

The ‘principle of selectivity’ appears to be Jesus tactic as mimicked today in ‘successful leadership training program in business, industry, government or the military’. Clearly this top-down strategy ensures ‘that the multitudes can be won easily if they are just given leaders to follow.’ For this was the reason they speculate that Jesus “called his disciples to him and chose twelve of them, whom he also designated apostles.” (Luke 6:13-17, Mark 3:13-19 NIV)

Only a few in the end of Jesus earthly life remained loyal to him. ‘Jesus doubtless would not be considered among the most productive mass evangelists of the church.’ [p.34] However, the religious affairs of Israel was supervised and instructed ‘though comparatively few in number’. ‘Why did Jesus deliberately concentrate his life on comparatively so few people? The answer to this question focuses at once on the real purpose of his plan for evangelism. Jesus was not trying to impress the crowd, but to usher in a kingdom. This meant that he needed people who could lead the multitudes. What good would it have been for his ultimate objective to arouse the masses to follow him if these people had no subsequent supervision or instruction in the Way?’ [pp.31-32] Therefore, the pattern of Christ mission depends on leadership. Where by it ‘teaches that the first duty of a church leadership is to see to it that a foundation is laid in the beginning on which can be built an effective and continuing evangelistic ministry to the multitudes.’ The foundation of the modern church must rest on ‘proper training’ from the beginning. ‘Here is where we must begin just like Jesus.’ [p38]

People ‘already in responsible positions of leadership’ within the modern church must be retrained! The disciple approach utterly relies on the role of leadership in order to built an effective system. Inappropriate leaders are quickly dismissed and replaced by ‘the lowly to become the great.’ ‘But if we can’t begin at the top, then let us begin where we are and train a few of the lowly to become the great.’ [p38] The role of leadership in the disciple approach becomes plain ‘to be raised up who could lead the multitudes in the things of God.’

The modern church lacks a personal guardian concern

Adherents to the disciple approach always argues that the modern church is not a place of continuing fellowship for the reason that members hardly associate constantly on a personal level. ‘When will the church learn this lesson? Preaching to the masses, although necessary, will never suffice in the work of preparing leaders for evangelism. Nor can occasional prayer meetings and training classes for Christian workers do this job. Building men and women is not that easy. It requires constant personal attention, much like a father gives to his children. This is something that no organization or class can ever do.’ [p.48]

The concepts of ‘evangelism and Christian nurture’ is apparent in the modern church ‘but little concern for personal association when it becomes evident that such work involves the sacrifice of personal indulgence.’ The impersonal efforts in reaching out to young members by the modern church entails ‘some kind of a confirmation class which usually meets an hour a week for a month or so.’ Perhaps ‘parents or friends’ tend to ‘fill the gap in a real way’ on a more personal level. Needless to say, such ‘haphazard follow-up of believers, it is no wonder that about half of those who make professions and join the church eventually fall way or lose the glow of a Christian experience, and fewer still grow in sufficient knowledge and grace to be of any real service to the Kingdom.’ ‘The church obviously has failed at this point, and failed tragically.’ [p.49]

Through association Jesus started and ended his earthly ministry stating, “Follow me” and “I am with you always”. ‘He was his own school and curriculum.’ [p.41] People flocked and listened to him. He becomes ‘the way and the truth and the life’ (John 14:6). The successes of today’s disciple approach modelled after Jesus training methods is based on informal training, which ‘contrast to the formal, almost scholastic procedures of the scribes.’ ‘Jesus asked only that his disciples follow him.’ [p.41] This calling of associating with Jesus was indifferent ‘in terms of laws and dogmas’ uphold by ’religious teachers insisted on their disciples adhering strictly to certain rituals and formulas of knowledge which distinguished them from others.’ ‘His disciples were distinguished, not by outward conformity to certain rituals, but by being with him, and thereby participating in his doctrine (John 18:19).’ [p.42]

The biblical concept of having a ‘group of believers’ that became the body of Christ whom ‘ministered to each other individually and collectively’ on a continuous basis slacken considerably in the modern church due to a lack of association. This ideal New Testament Christian practice now embodies the heart and soul of the disciple approach. ‘Every member of the community of faith had a part to fulfil in this ministry.’ [p.48]

The element of association plays a vital role within the fellowship. An uninspired church is dead when people lost the ability to make disciples themselves. People are trained and inspired by ‘trained disciplers’ who aspire to become trained disciplers. This concept of reproduction according to the disciple approach is observed in the following way. ‘As long as Jesus was with them in the flesh, he was the Leader, but thereafter, it was necessary for those in the church to assume this leadership. Again this meant that Jesus had to train them to do it, which involved his own constant personal association with a few chosen men.’ [p.48]

The modern church lacks a personal guardian concern because people are trained to become distant through the follow-up system it has adopted whether it may be confirmation classes, parents and friends help, worship services or membership training classes. What is lacking for ‘the rest of the time the young convert [and mature member] has no contact with a definite Christian training program’. The disciple approach argues that ‘Jesus the Son of God, found it necessary to stay almost constantly with his few disciples for three years, and even one of them was lost, how can a church expect to do this job on an assembly line basis a few days out of the year?’

Therefore they caution that a prerequisite for ‘whatever method of follow-up the church adopts, it must have as its basis a personal guardian concern for those entrusted to their care. To do otherwise is essentially to abandon new believers to the devil.’ A ‘Christian friend’ is assigned to ‘every convert’. The personal guardian is known as ‘trained disciplers’ or ‘committed councelors’. A system whereby the counsellor ‘should stay with the new believer as much as possible, studying the Bible and praying with him or her, all the while answering questions, clarifying the truth, and seeking together to help others.’ Observation ends when the new convert ‘can lead another’. Nothing can be accomplished through this system if leaders are disobeyed. ‘A father must teach his children to obey him if he expects his children to be like him.’ [P.58]

The modern church lacks a membership roll of obedience

The idea that Christians must be obedient to one another is a foreign concept in the contemporary church. Adherents of the disciple approach blame the modern church for ‘dillydallying around with the commands of Christ’ by replacing ‘the teachings of Christ regarding self-denial and dedication’ to ‘a sort of respectable “do-as-you-please” philosophy of expediency.’ ‘Where is the obedience of the cross?’ [p.59]

The level of obedience required by the disciple approach stems from the believe that ‘Jesus expected the men he was with to obey him.’ ‘They were called his “disciples” meaning that they were “learners” or “pupils” of the Master.’ This arrangement ‘became the distinguishing mark’ by which Jesus’ disciples later were called “Christian” (Acts 11:26) ‘for in time obedient followers invariably take on the character of their leader.’ ‘They were not required to be smart, but they had to be loyal.’ [p.51]

The key element according to the disciple approach is daily self-denial (Luke 9:23), which is lacking in the lives of ‘many professed Christians today.’ It is an alien concept locked up in the early teachings of Jesus in the New Testament hopelessly unexplored by the modern Christian. ‘The great tragedy is that little is being done to correct the situation, even by those who realize what is happening. Certainly the need of the hour is not for despair, but for action.’ [p.59]

The modern church lacks a membership role of obedience comparatively to the disciple approach requirement of membership ‘in terms of true Christian discipleship’. ‘It is high time that the requirements for membership in the church be interpreted and enforced in terms of true Christian discipleship.’ [p.60] True Christian discipleship congregations unlike contemporary churches have ‘church officials’ who are obeyed by their respected ‘church membership’ who understand ‘the meaning of obedience’. ‘Followers must have leaders, and this means that before much can be done with the church membership something will have to be done with the church officials. If this task seems to be too great, then we will have to start like Jesus did by getting with a few chosen ones and instilling into them the meaning of obedience.’ [p.60]

The disciple approach demonstrates its ability to instil the ‘meaning of obedience’ even if ‘church officials’ in the modern church labour some concerns. They can easily pick up the ‘lowly to become the great’ because the disciple approach does not rely on ‘smart’ people, ‘but they had to be loyal’. The disciple approach has no room for ‘those who wanted to make their own terms of discipleship.’

The modern church lacks a strategy of world conquest

“We must always remember, too, that the goal is world conquest.” [p.95] In order to spread fast the disciple approach latch on ‘promising individuals’ thus establishing a ‘beachhead’. “Into whatsoever city or village ye shall enter, search out who in it is worthy; and there abide till ye go forth” (Matt 10:11; cf., Mark 6:10; Luke 9:4). In effect, the disciples were told to concentrate their time on the most promising individuals in each town who would thereby be able to follow up their work after they had gone. This was to receive priority over everything else.” [p.82] “The principle of establishing a beachhead in a new place of labor by connecting with a potentially key follow up leader is not to be minimized. Jesus had lived by it with his own disciples, and he expected them to do the same. His whole plan of evangelism depended on it, and those places which refused the disciples opportunity to practice this principle actually brought the judgement of utter darkness on themselves.” [p82] (Matt 10:14,15; cf., Luke 9:5; Mark 6:11)

The disciple approach appetite for ‘world conquest’ can never be satisfied with mere ‘firstfruits’. “When will we learn the lesson of Christ not to be satisfied merely with the firstfruits of those who are sent out to witness?” [p.95] “It does not matter how many people we enlist for the cause, but how many they conquer for Christ.” [p.115]

The disciple approach relies on ‘sharp people’ to bring itself into effect. “If we get the right quality of leadership, the rest will follow; if we do not get it, the rest have nothing worth following.” [p.115]

The disciple approach is the final solution. There is no other plan for world conquest. “It did not matter how small the group was to start with so long as they reproduced and taught their disciples to reproduce. This was the way his church was to win – through the dedicated lives of those who knew the Savior so well that his Spirit and method constrained them to tell others. As simple as it may seem, this was the way the gospel would conquer. He had no other plan.” [p.99]

Sunday, October 08, 2006

The Rise of the Portland movement: Where Are The Churches?

Part 3: Looking for an Alternative: Where Would I Find It?

“Much material”, according to Tom Jones, “has been circulated declaring the mistakes and errors of the discipling churches and further declaring that there are better alternatives for those who want to follow Jesus.” Jones made this statement thirteen years ago in an UpsideDown magazine of the International Churches of Christ (ICOC).

He asked: “Where are the churches where the majority of members even understand that it is their responsibility to make disciples and to teach others what following Jesus is all about? Where are the churches where the average member prepares himself or herself to study the Bible with someone else and then does it? Where are the churches who have brought many others to Christ out of the world and then showed us how to care for them, mature them and keep them faithful? Where is the church that can speak with any experience about such things?”

Jones introspective questions of 1993 is though provoking. More so, it strikes a cord, which modern Christian cannot ignore. Here, Christians as individuals need to examine their relational fellowship with Jesus Christ and “one another”. Here Christians need to know they are first and foremost “the Lord’s disciples” (Acts 9:1) and according to the Apostle “so in Christ we who are many form one body, and each member belongs to all the others” (Romans 12:5 NIV).

However, can Jones and company ignore the criticism because there seems to be no other alternative for the successes of the disciple approach? Where are the churches who has embraced the disciple approach?

Perhaps the family of churches of the ICOC imitate a lazy example of the Boston era because leadership have no other alternative. Consider Tom Jones statement of 1993 “If some of the critics are ready to show us something better, I for one am ready and willing to pay attention and learn, but at this point I am still waiting and wondering: where are these other churches?” And Steve Johnson statement of last year; “I wanted to do exactly what I did in Boston in 1979 or in New York in 1983 – in regards to teaching people how to teach people to become disciples. I’ve not come up, and I haven’t seen anyone else that has come up with a better mousetrap. And I assure you that when I see one, I’ll adopt it just like I did when I moved to Boston to be trained by Kip back when the dinosaurs roamed the earth.”

The time has come for those I-told-you-so-crowd who contributed to “much material” and rightly pointed out the “mistakes and errors of the discipling churches” to put up “that there are better alternatives for those who want to follow Jesus” or shut up. Likewise, staunch ICOC supporters of the disciple approach dare not slip into their comfort zone imitating the “mistakes and errors” of the Boston pattern “in regards to teaching people how to teach people to become disciples.”

The rise of the disciple approach in the Twentieth Century has produced a cultural phenomenon that enables modern Christians to act like Disciples of Christ. This approach manages to bring the devotee in touch with a type of schedule base upon Jesus daily ministry rather than relying on a traditional weekly spiritual experience.

The benefit of the disciple approach is it can be introduced “with stealth” in any church group. However, a remark in the context of the Church of Christ early adoption of the disciple approach bears a foreboding that needs to be addressed. “What you are experiencing in the Church of Christ is what the charismatic movement vomited up.”

Here members of the ICOC have seldom acquainted them with the ”giants of the past” upholding the disciple approach in the Pentecostal movement. Don E. Vinzant’s article, The Discipling Dilemma warns ”against the abuses of authoritarian discipling” that “appear as early as 1974.” Early role players who have contributed to the disciple approach were Watchman Nee, Juan Carlos Ortiz, the Shepherds of Fort Lauderdale, Florida consisting of Don Basham, Ern Baxter, Bob Mumford, Derek Prince and Charles Simpson. Bob Mumford no longer supports the disciple approach. This year he apologised: “Discipleship was wrong. I repent. I ask forgiveness.” Other prolific authors like Robert Emerson Coleman and various para church organizations such as Campus Crusade; the Navigators have influenced “charismatic” Protestant and Catholic groups alike.

There’s a new doctrine called “the discipleship and submission movement”. You may have never heard of it before. But it is so subtle and doing so much harm that if somebody doesn’t do something to rebuke Satan and stop this movement, it is going to absolutely destroy the great charismatic movement… Not only do they tell you to give your money to the shepherd, but to become involved in cell groups and to “reveal your deepest thoughts.” I’ll tell you one thing. I’m not going to tell anybody my inner thoughts. – Kathryn Kuhlman, speech at Youngtown, Ohio, 1975

It should be apparent why the Shepherding Movement is in such error: it applied to men what rightfully belongs to God. Instead of saying the Lord is the covering, it claims that shepherds are the covering. When the Bible says people can trust God for strength and guidance, the Shepherding Movement says that a man is necessary too. In short, the Shepherding Movement casts doubt on God’s ability to care for the Christian. – Steve Coleman, ‘Christian, Who Is Your Covering? 1981

Vinzant affirm there ‘is a large body of literature full of warnings and criticism of this authoritarianism as it has been tried by others. The fact that [others have tried it] is rather embarrassing to those who thought that someone in the churches of Christ invented this approach. The reality, however, is that churches of Christ are among the last ones to be damaged by the discipling movement.’

In 1967 the Church of Christ started a pilot programme called Campus Advance modelled after Campus Crusade for Christ in order to impact the campuses. Charles ‘Chuck’ Lucas was a campus minister in the 14th Street Church of Christ (later renamed the Crossroads Church of Christ). This new undertaking started in several Church of Christ congregations focusing on shepherding of Christians by other Christians primarily from students basing their techniques on the “one-another passages”.

The Crossroads movement was the product of Chuck Lucas teachings after modifying discipleship principles observed in certain Christian groups such as The Navigators, Campus Crusade for Christ and InterVarsity Christian Fellowship. Lucas was also influenced by Robert E. Coleman’s book The Master Plan of Evangelism first published in 1963. He thought up “prayer partners”, the pairing of new converts with mature Christians and “soul talks”, small group Bible classes designed to attract newcomers to join-up. Although Chuck was the pioneer of this system after a sabbatical he left the ministry for personal spiritual reasons in 1986. Kip McKean become the “perfector” of this system. Lucas’ idea of discipleship was modified by Kip. Prayer partners became “Discipling partners”. Soul talks became “Bible Talks”. In 1988, the Crossroads Church of Christ and the Church of Christ denomination dissociates themselves from the Boston movement disciple approach. Thus, left McKean to explore new frontiers of doctrine without being hampered by the elementary teachings of the Church of Christ. According to Kip’s perception he made a conscious effort to move away from the Church of Christ dogma by “moving back to the Bible doctrinally” while moving forward around the world. The Boston movement equipped with the disciple approach has become according to McKean “God’s restored true church and movement.”

Adherents to the disciple approach are convinced that this system “is not a system contrived by man, but a way of relating that springs from the word of God.” Gordon Ferguson’s book entitled Discipling (1997) pleads with his readers like McKean that the disciple approach “is the forgotten art, the missing ingredient, in so many efforts to built churches and practice what is commonly known as Christianity.” Ferguson reasons, “Discipling has been rediscovered and reinstituted in modern times by those who have a passion to restore the relational nature of biblical Christianity.”

Here, Ferguson’s “relational nature of biblical Christianity” relates to “personal association” an expression used by Robert E. Coleman author of The Master Plan of Evangelism (1963, 2000). Coleman observed: “There is a lot of talk in the church about evangelism and Christian nurture, but little concern for personal association when it becomes evident that such work involves the sacrifice of personal indulgence.” (P.47 – First Edition 1963 or p.49 – Second Edition, 2003)

Gordon Ferguson’s Discipling reason that “people today cannot gain a complete understanding of Christ simply from reading the New Testament; we now have to see a flesh and blood Jesus in the form of his body, the church of his disciples.” Furthermore, “there can be no “loner” Christians. We play an absolute essential role in each other’s lives.” Kip McKean recently asked during 2006 Portland World Missions Jubilee: “Where are your 12 disciples? Who are your Peter, James and John?”

The preacher-centred model, which allows the pastor to do everything, is replaced with the disciple approach where everyone is empowered to co-work as a unified entity. No wonder such an arrangement in the church will lead to “some incredible results.” The disciple approach have distinct itself from the “lazy example” as stated by Coleman. “If Sunday services and membership training classes are all that a church has to develop young converts into mature disciples, then they are defeating their own purpose by contributing to a false security, and if the new convert follows the same lazy example, it may ultimately do more harm than good.”

Ferguson admits, “independent Westerners have a difficult time with the concept.” He states: ”The Jews in Jesus’ day employed much the same method of training, as did the famous philosophers. Leading rabbis had their little groups who followed them through their daily tasks, straining to pick up every tidbit of wisdom that might drop from their lips. Paul had been tutored in this fashion… John the Baptist had a definite group of disciples… Certainly he [Jesus] came forward like a rabbi, calling men to follow him.”

As much as adherents of the disciple approach want to implement everything Jesus commanded they have over looked a specific command from the Lord concerning the formation of relationships in the Church. Here the adherents of the disciple approach in their pursued to become disciples and make disciples have failed to grasp that the New Testament more specifically the Four Gospel Books only entertains MASTER/STUDENT relations.

Roy Davison, an evangelist of the Church of Christ dealt in 1988 with the disciple approach in an article Errors of Hierarchical Discipleship (Click Sidebar: Roy Davison). Davison states that this movement “is based on the thesis that Christ’s master/disciple relationship with the twelve apostles is a pattern to be followed in making, training and leading disciples today.” The fundamental error of the disciple approach based on this thesis according to Davison’s observations “is that Jesus training his apostles is used as a pattern for making disciples, whereas these are entirely different matters.” Roy points out ICOC members “use an incorrect definition for the word “disciple”. They define a disciple as a Christian who is trained through a subordinate relationship with another Christian. This unscriptural definition results from an incorrect concept how one becomes a disciple of Christ.”

The Great Commission: “Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptising them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and TEACHING THEM TO OBEY EVERYTHING I HAVE COMMANDED YOU” can never be based on the rabbinical master/student concept as observed by the disciple approach. “Certainly [Jesus] came forward like a rabbi, calling men to follow him.” Nevertheless as a Rabbi, Jesus strictly forbids his disciples to imitate this system in the Body of Christ. “But you are not to be called ‘Rabbi’, for you have only one master and YOU ARE ALL BROTHERS (Matthew 23:8 NIV).” Rightly so! Because Rabbi Jesus “is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy (Colossians 1:18 NIV).”

Christians wrote the Apostle “have different gifts, according to the grace given us.” “If it is leadership, let him govern diligently” (Romans 12:6-8 NIV). Therefore leadership have a responsibility in the Church not to overstep ground rules already emplaced. “For no one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid, which is Jesus Christ (1 Corinthians 3:11 NIV).

As much as the disciple approach display the ability to rejuvenate the modern Church it also reaps havoc amongst Christians. History has shown that any Christian group embracing the disciple approach have in the long run caused much division in the Body of Christ. The vomit the Church of Christ lapped up in 1967 soured relations within this group that allowed a church split in 1988. Today church leadership whether from the Portland movement or the United Cooperation Group who persists with the disciple approach are not “shepherds of the church of God”. Like “savage wolves” amongst us they “will not spare the flock.” The elders of the church in Ephesus were perhaps perplexed with Paul’s admonishment: “Even from your own number men will arise and distort the truth in order to draw away disciples after them. So be on your guard!” (Acts 20:30,31 NIV)

How can any right-minded leader within the context of the ICOC family of churches persist with a “mousetrap” that displays the “mistakes and errors” of the Boston pattern “in regards to teaching people how to teach people to become disciples”? There is no excuse for "embracing discipleship" even if other church groups relies on "lazy examples". How can more than seventy percent of the ICOC pooled with the Unity Proposal Group still justify “embracing discipleship”?

If the Portland movement leadership ask: “Where are your 12 disciples? Who are your Peter, James and John?” then the United Cooperation Group is not far off in asking that of their own churches.

Today we ask: Where are the Churches who entertain the disciple approach? Where is the church that can speak with any experience about such things?

Was these articles helpful?
Email Address:

free forms