Dave Eastman’s article entitled Embracing Discipleship (Part 1) startled me for a number of reasons, mainly because the author proposes new insights and applications to embrace once again, or maybe for the first time, the discipleship to which we are called. Eastman is of opinion people should say ‘no’ to Jesus rabbinical one-over-another disciple model and ‘yes’ to one-another disciple partner arrangements. Is his proposal the correct model?
First it must be said, Eastman is an old hand from the Crossroads era. He has experienced many adjustments to the disciple approach since his first introduction in the late seventies. Terminology shifts between the founder of the Crossroads movement, Charles ‘Chuck’ Lucas and his protégée were early indicators of things to come; McKean pioneered an egoistic guru-style leadership in 1988 based on Jesus leading his few. The Boston movement, which McKean started in 1979, extended over a twenty-year span known as Episode 1, which relapsed in the new millennium with McKean’s Unity Meeting resignation in 2002.
Henry Kriete’s letter followed the Unity Meeting. Here, Kriete’s document presented an honest evaluation of past and present sins especially concerning the formation structures of discipleship in the former ICOC. I quote: That we have become a top to bottom hierarchy is not a question. The truth is we are. Why we have chosen this model, and sought to crystallize it, when the apostolic church has no such model, is the big question. Even with other models to pattern ourselves after; even with so many teachers in our churches who surely know better, the fact is that we have chosen and systematically enforced this one. The reason I use the word ‘enforced’ is simple: we have become what we’ve wanted to become; what we have insisted on becoming. How did this happen? I am not entirely sure. Why we let happen is the more radical question.
Clearly, Dave Eastman is not in favour of any pyramidal relations in his proposal, but he has already made a grave mistake. The fact is Eastman have chosen and systematically enforced this one – discipling relationships. The question is will Chicago Church let it happen? It appears that some Christians in this fellowship would be concerned about a renewed emphasis on discipling relationships.
The new ICOC have come a long way avoiding the pitfalls of the one-over-another model since McKean’s resignation. However, by large, leaders are determined not to let go of discipleship methodologies. Perhaps their dilemma could be explained if Micky Mouse would be removed from Walt Disney, would it still be a Walt Disney? The reconstruction attempts since decentralisation have almost levelled the ICOC to the Church of Christ. Imagine if disciple relations were compromised; the next step would be reintegration with the Church of Christ.
It’s sad to see men like Dave Eastman rallying for a position that would lead to more questions than answers, or a road to nowhere, especially if these men are unwilling to throw the baby out with the bath water, considering mandatory or intentional disciple relationships!
Ask this question during October’s discussion. Does it mean if you are born a ‘discipling’ church; you must forever remain a ‘discipling’ church? Is it not to use Kriete’s words what we have insisted on becoming? Eastman stated: We were born as a discipling church. We grew up as a discipling church. And though we made mistakes, and at times sinned, as a discipling church, we are still a discipling church. That means that each one of us needs to once again embrace discipling.
Well we know where were goin
But we dont know where weve been
And we know what were knowin
But we cant say what weve seen
And were not little children
And we know what we want
And the future is certain
Give us time to work it out
Next time: The Road to nowhere
No comments:
Post a Comment