Discipling Model

[e.r.m.]

I've seen and heard of various models of leadership when it comes to iron sharpening iron Proverbs 27:17 among church members. I've heard of churches with no system of accountability at all, laissez faire where the church members are allowed to sleep with whomever they want and do whatever they want and still be considered a member of the church. I've seen where the church sets up a system where everyone in the church is paired up with somebody else in the church so that they could keep each other accountable and encourage each other and help each other grow spiritually. Of course, the effectiveness of this model depends on how good the leadership is in working with people. I've seen this work very well, and I've seen this work very badly. I've seen a church divided into small groups and good and bad with this as well, but to be fair, even Jesus's group of twelve had Judas. There are a variety of factors that determine how successful any model is toward seeing that no one has a sinful unbelieving heart that turns away from the living God, Hebrews 3:12. My belief is that a church setting up small groups, like Jesus did with his 12 apostles, is the best model. What do you all think is the best model and why?
Thank you.

 

[Mountain_Climber]

I've seen and heard of various models of leadership when it comes to iron sharpening iron Proverbs 27:17 among church members. I've heard of churches with no system of accountability at all, laissez faire where the church members are allowed to sleep with whomever they want and do whatever they want and still be considered a member of the church. I've seen where the church sets up a system where everyone in the church is paired up with somebody else in the church so that they could keep each other accountable and encourage each other and help each other grow spiritually. Of course, the effectiveness of this model depends on how good the leadership is in working with people. I've seen this work very well, and I've seen this work very badly. I've seen a church divided into small groups and good and bad with this as well, but to be fair, even Jesus's group of twelve had Judas. There are a variety of factors that determine how successful any model is toward seeing that no one has a sinful unbelieving heart that turns away from the living God, Hebrews 3:12. My belief is that a church setting up small groups, like Jesus did with his 12 apostles, is the best model. What do you all think is the best model and why?
Thank you.

Small groups are good if they are governed all by the same spirit and all satisfy their thirst of the same spiritual rock-mass. The problem is with the flesh creeping in to form renegades.

To combat that after it has taken hold is a major problem. These renegades are also driven of a spirit that is quite powerful compared to the average babe in Christ. For that reason we want to discourage groups formed of less mature ones, always pairing mature ones with the less mature ones. But if the congregation has gone for some time not watching closely as these groups form, (and they do always form on their own as what we call clicks), then that congregation has a real battle on it's hands to undo the damage. Once clicks are formed, the members of these clicks draw comfort from them. These clicks furnish to them a group of like minded people to reassure them that they are right even about things they have wrong. And we have to know that at no time does anyone convince his or her self of an independent view which differs from what the congregation head shepherds teach lest he or she has already begun dismissing respect for the knowledge of the congregation's head shepherds. And that usually cannot be corrected quickly or easily. This is in fact a huge part of what allowed for much corruption of truth in Christian teachings over the course of many centuries. After many centuries the corruption is staggering, considering that it really takes no time at all for such clicks to corrupt a teaching and through the centuries we then have literally thousands of these corruptions built upon unto one mammoth false religion. And yet it has a spirit to mistake for the spirit it lacks.

1 Peter chapter 5 is about this subject. The problem is that this late in time, now that centuries have passed with the shepherds asleep and much false doctrine built up, it seems that the false doctrine is the right doctrine to defend when one reads the following:

1 Timothy 6:3 If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness;
4 He is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings,
5 Perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth, supposing that gain is godliness: from such withdraw thyself.

That presents quite the dilemma, for if we identify incorrect doctrine being taught we have a responsibility before God to speak up to the elders about it and those elders are often posed and ready to see us as insubordinate, deviating from the truth through doubts. And then they fear for the flock and suppress us, destroying our reputation for loving the truth enough to speak up.

 

[RossRonin]

The small-group model is also supported by another example, besides Jesus' group of twelve. It's in Acts 19:1-7 where Paul finds some disciples in Ephesus who he baptizes; and then, "when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied. And all the men were about twelve."

In a small congregation you have fewer potential problems, and in my experience problems of all sorts seem to multiply exponentially as the congregation increases in size. Smaller units don't really need a pastor or other administrator. They can be self-sufficient to the extent that the church John wrote to was able to function autonomously, in 1 John 2:20, 27. "But ye have an unction from the Holy One, and ye know all things...Ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things...even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him."

I think in larger churches, Paul's original idea of ordaining elders (bishops and deacons) should be standard practice. Nothing in the New Testament speaks of every church having a pastor! Notice how Paul's epistles are not once addressed to pastors, but to the congregations themselves. One time he does mention elders, in Philippians 1:1. "Paul and Timotheus...to all the saints in Christ Jesus which are at Philippi, with the bishops and deacons."

He almost makes it sound as if addressing the leadership was an afterthought, because the ideal model as I see it is an autonomous congregation that is able to govern and lead and police itself. Paul's typical attitude is seen in Romans 15:14, where he says "I myself also am persuaded of you, my brethren, that ye also are full of goodness, filled with all knowledge, able also to admonish one another." If everyone is full of goodness and knowledge, then the admonition does not need to be continually delivered by a pastor, or apostle, or prophet, etc. Believers, ideally, should be able to admonish one another, exhort one another, and edify one another without having to hire a pastor.

...those elders are often posed and ready to see us as insubordinate,

I agree. That's why I tell my Jehovah's Witness friends, "There are indeed a small percentage of Witnesses who are valiant for the truth, and who speak up about the errors they find in Watchtower Society teachings and traditions: and those believers are all known as former Jehovah's Witnesses." Their leadership has zero intolerance for rank-and-file members who think critically and do their best to "prove all things" by rightly dividing the scriptures, and that scenario exists in many other denominations as well.

 

[e.r.m.]

The small-group model is also supported by another example, besides Jesus' group of twelve. It's in Acts 19:1-7 where Paul finds some disciples in Ephesus who he baptizes; and then, "when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied. And all the men were about twelve."

In a small congregation you have fewer potential problems, and in my experience problems of all sorts seem to multiply exponentially as the congregation increases in size. Smaller units don't really need a pastor or other administrator. They can be self-sufficient to the extent that the church John wrote to was able to function autonomously, in 1 John 2:20, 27. "But ye have an unction from the Holy One, and ye know all things...Ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things...even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him."

I think in larger churches, Paul's original idea of ordaining elders (bishops and deacons) should be standard practice. Nothing in the New Testament speaks of every church having a pastor! Notice how Paul's epistles are not once addressed to pastors, but to the congregations themselves. One time he does mention elders, in Philippians 1:1. "Paul and Timotheus...to all the saints in Christ Jesus which are at Philippi, with the bishops and deacons."

He almost makes it sound as if addressing the leadership was an afterthought, because the ideal model as I see it is an autonomous congregation that is able to govern and lead and police itself. Paul's typical attitude is seen in Romans 15:14, where he says "I myself also am persuaded of you, my brethren, that ye also are full of goodness, filled with all knowledge, able also to admonish one another." If everyone is full of goodness and knowledge, then the admonition does not need to be continually delivered by a pastor, or apostle, or prophet, etc. Believers, ideally, should be able to admonish one another, exhort one another, and edify one another without having to hire a pastor.



I agree. That's why I tell my Jehovah's Witness friends, "There are indeed a small percentage of Witnesses who are valiant for the truth, and who speak up about the errors they find in Watchtower Society teachings and traditions: and those believers are all known as former Jehovah's Witnesses." Their leadership has zero intolerance for rank-and-file members who think critically and do their best to "prove all things" by rightly dividing the scriptures, and that scenario exists in many other denominations as well.

I heard that Timothy led a mammoth sized church. Nothing wrong with large congregations, as long as they can meet in small groups regularly as well. I would hope those twelve disciples would join the church in Ephesus.

 

[outhouse]

even Jesus's group of twelve had Judas

The 12 is probably mythical my friend. I do believe his inner circle is historical though.

And Judas is a very interesting character, if you get into the difference between him in the gospel traditions he can be very colorful, and be helping Jesus do what it is theology states he was trying to do.

Later Gnostic books close to this time period play him as more of a hero then a traitor.

Gospel of Judas - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In contrast to the canonical gospels, which paint Judas as the betrayer who delivered Jesus up to the authorities for crucifixion in exchange for money, the Gospel of Judas portrays Judas's actions as done in obedience to instructions given by Christ.

. My belief is that a church setting up small groups, like Jesus did with his 12 apostles, is the best model.

Again this was probably set up following the 12 tribes of Israel found in the OT. Which also probably did not exist.

Historical Israelites and biblical Israelites are 4 different things.

What do you all think is the best model and why?

I think small groups work fine. But large groups have the possibility for like minded theology. I don't think there is any "best" model because each offers positive aspects for different people.


The way I see it is Jesus sending in 3-4 apostles announcing his arrival before he made his entrance into a village so he might have a small crowd who would actually listen to him.


I think he learned from John the Baptist not to pull large crowds are Antipas might take him out. So traveling in a small 4-5 man group made him seem normal and not threatening politically.

Traveling around with a large group would be asking for trouble in this time and place. Antipas was smart in how he dealt with seditionist without the Roman army on hand.

 

[outhouse]

I heard that Timothy led a mammoth sized church. Nothing wrong with large congregations, as long as they can meet in small groups regularly as well. I would hope those twelve disciples would join the church in Ephesus.

Probably not the case. He was part of a Pater Familias which is similar to a small community.

They had no churches in Pauls time. The Koine word is "assembly" for church in the NT and we know they met in houses around the dinner table still much like Jesus would have. Less the poverty Jesus lived in compared to the Hellenist like Paul and Tim

 

[outhouse]

Nothing in the New Testament speaks of every church having a pastor! Notice how Paul's epistles are not once addressed to pastors, but to the congregations themselves.

Because they didn't really have leadership at that time. There were many different groups worshipping many different things.

That's why Pauls community was trying to set these others straight within their theology.


They also had many women early on who ran the Pater Familias, and much of this was later hidden as male dominated church took power.

 

[outhouse]

I've heard of churches with no system of accountability at all, laissez faire where the church members are allowed to sleep with whomever they want and do whatever they want and still be considered a member of the church. I've seen where the church sets up a system where everyone in the church is paired up with somebody else in the church so that they could keep each other accountable and encourage each other and help each other grow spiritually. Of course, the effectiveness of this model depends on how good the leadership is in working with people.

This is cultish, no way around calling it a cult.

 

[RossRonin]

Because they didn't really have leadership at that time.

True, and as far as I can tell, the only useful procedures for ordaining leadership that Paul left us are those regarding elders. I'm not Presbyterian but I believe the concept of leadership by presbytery in individual congregations is the model given in the New Testament.

Pastors are lumped with teachers, evangelists, prophets, and apostles in Paul's list of specially called and anointed individuals, and he says "he gave some apostles, and some evangelists," and so on. Nowhere can I find anything in the New Testament indicating, "And he gave all pastors." he gave "some." I think pastors are wonderful, but their role is vastly exaggerated in churches today.

Paul told Titus to ordain elders (bishops and deacons) in every church. Not pastors, but elders! Every congregation was supposed to be governed by elders, and today everyone has departed from that model. To make matters worse, these fundamentally illegitimate pastors have dragged out the Mosaic commandment to "give the tenth part to the Levites" and are collecting it for themselves. What a racket.

 

[RossRonin]

I would hope those twelve disciples would join the church in Ephesus.

I was actually thinking how lucky they were to be so small in number.

The church at Corinth was certainly large: what a multitude of problems they had! Those twelve Ephesians Paul encountered may have been safer keeping their congregation small, because in my experience problems of all sorts increase exponentially as the size of the group increases.

Jesus did set a minimum of "two or three gathered together" in order for him to be in their midst, so we don't want Christians totally isolated from one another; but when Paul says repeatedly "the congregation that is in the house of..." that indicates to me that he allowed for those smaller groups as a matter of common practice.

Romans 16:5 Likewise greet the church that is in their house.
1 Corinthians 16:19 Aquila and Priscilla salute you...with the church that is in their house.
Colossians 4:15 Salute...Nymphas, and the church which is in his house.
Philemon 1:2 And to our beloved Apphia...and to the church in thy house:

 

[outhouse]

Nowhere can I find anything in the New Testament indicating, "And he gave all pastors." he gave "some."

Again I would have to refer to the original Koine word used before I would agree on the term "Pastor" which I view as part of the head of the household. Women were often in charge early on for the first few hundred years right a long side with men.

And remember Paul's community was a very small part of the over all picture. What Paul gave or did not, had very little meaning one way or the other.

There was no structure or orthodoxy and different beliefs were the norm.

 

[Mountain_Climber]

The small-group model is also supported by another example, besides Jesus' group of twelve. It's in Acts 19:1-7 where Paul finds some disciples in Ephesus who he baptizes; and then, "when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied. And all the men were about twelve."

In a small congregation you have fewer potential problems, and in my experience problems of all sorts seem to multiply exponentially as the congregation increases in size. Smaller units don't really need a pastor or other administrator. They can be self-sufficient to the extent that the church John wrote to was able to function autonomously, in 1 John 2:20, 27. "But ye have an unction from the Holy One, and ye know all things...Ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things...even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him."

I think in larger churches, Paul's original idea of ordaining elders (bishops and deacons) should be standard practice. Nothing in the New Testament speaks of every church having a pastor! Notice how Paul's epistles are not once addressed to pastors, but to the congregations themselves. One time he does mention elders, in Philippians 1:1. "Paul and Timotheus...to all the saints in Christ Jesus which are at Philippi, with the bishops and deacons."

He almost makes it sound as if addressing the leadership was an afterthought, because the ideal model as I see it is an autonomous congregation that is able to govern and lead and police itself. Paul's typical attitude is seen in Romans 15:14, where he says "I myself also am persuaded of you, my brethren, that ye also are full of goodness, filled with all knowledge, able also to admonish one another." If everyone is full of goodness and knowledge, then the admonition does not need to be continually delivered by a pastor, or apostle, or prophet, etc. Believers, ideally, should be able to admonish one another, exhort one another, and edify one another without having to hire a pastor.


I agree. That's why I tell my Jehovah's Witness friends, "There are indeed a small percentage of Witnesses who are valiant for the truth, and who speak up about the errors they find in Watchtower Society teachings and traditions: and those believers are all known as former Jehovah's Witnesses." Their leadership has zero intolerance for rank-and-file members who think critically and do their best to "prove all things" by rightly dividing the scriptures, and that scenario exists in many other denominations as well.

I particularly like the point you make in paragraph 4. The fact is that shepherding a congregation is in some ways like raising children. If we don't give our children a bit of the rope of trust we keep them dependent upon us to make their decisions for them. And if that is how we have raised our children, then when they get older and are now out and away from us we find out too late that they had not exactly understood all we had tried to teach them, after we no longer have a way to pull them back in and make adjustments.

We want our children to learn to be able to think for themselves in a healthy fashion. And as a Christian parent we should know that means we must become able to teach godly principles and be able to gauge how much of these principles are actually reaching their hearts. That works no different when shepherding a congregation. If we become too legalistic it defeats that purpose.

 

[psychoslice]

I believe that we all should have our own way of seeing whatever, religion or whatever, and its no ones business.

 

[Mountain_Climber]

I believe that we all should have our own way of seeing whatever, religion or whatever, and its no ones business.

When speaking of adults, you are right that none of us have any right to forcefully push our ideas on anyone else.

Children are a bit of a different matter as we have an obligation to teach them as best we can how to live a trouble free and productive life.

Unfortunately, things are kind of backwards there. We have our children while we yet have much to learn about life and by the time we learn what we need to know to do the job right our children are grown and gone.

That 20/20 hindsight, what a kicker it is

 

[RossRonin]

Paul's community was a very small part of the over all picture. What Paul gave or did not, had very little meaning one way or the other.

Actually if you begin with Paul's letter to the Romans, and in every one of his letters pick out the audacious claims to supreme apostolic authority he made, you will be amazed: Paul's community, however small, was the prototype for all future congregations because his teaching and traditions came with the caveat, "Teach no other doctrine" than "those things that you have heard, and seen, and learned and received in me," because "God shall judge the secrets of men...according to my gospel," and therefore "be ye followers of me," and so on.

Paul's biography testifies to his authority: Galatians 1:11-12 is one of the most incredible claims made by any apostle!

"But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man.
For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ."

No apostle or disciple ever taught Paul one ounce of doctrine. The revelation to Paul of Jesus Christ himself is what established Paul as the second great pillar of New Testament truth by which all other truth is measured, Christ himself being the first pillar. Only Paul and Jesus made personal declarations that God had ordained each of them to be exemplary. And only Paul, of all the apostles, dared to write things like this :

1 Corinthians 11:2 Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you.
2 Timothy 3:14 But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them;
1 Corinthians 11:23 For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you...

So when Paul writes that Jesus Christ gave "some" pastors, we have to take note.

Jesus gave gifts to men, Paul explained, and he gave some apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, and some pastors and teachers. You can't miss that word "some," and its significance today is multiplied many times over: instead of congregations led by ordained elders, that is, bishops and deacons, almost every church is led by a pastor. Instead of "some" pastors, Christendom is polluted with pastors, the overwhelming majority of whom have no legitimate claim to authority in the least degree.

I'm not Presbyterian, but I'm confident that the model of rule-by-presbytery is what Paul (and hence Jesus himself) planned for all the congregations of God. Apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers are useful, but as individuals they are not in demand in every congregation as we discover in 1 John ("you don't need any man to teach you, because you have an anointing, and that anointing teaches you of all things"). In a spiritually mature congregation, autonomy should be the rule and not the exception.

 

[outhouse]

No apostle or disciple ever taught Paul one ounce of doctrine.

How much do you think he knew about this sect being he was in charge of hunting them down?

. The revelation to Paul of Jesus Christ himself is what established Paul as the second great pillar of New Testament truth by which all other truth is measured

That is not a historical statement it is one of apologetics and theology. It carries no weight in a historical setting.

Actually if you begin with Paul's letter to the Romans, and in every one of his letters pick out the audacious claims to supreme apostolic authority he made,

Two notes.

Paul often did not write alone or by himself, his epistles fro the most part were a community effort.

Next Paul wrote rhetorically to purposely build his authority. It was the prose most all authors were trained to write in during this period.

instead of congregations led by ordained elders, that is, bishops and deacons, almost every church is led by a pastor.

There was no pastor at this time. The word did not really exist at that time. poimēn is the Greek word which means shepherd.

You might need to learn a few more things here before commenting on Paul with such certainty


Churches did not exist, there was no orthodoxy at all. There was only small hidden groups meeting around the dinner table in houses known as Pater Familias.

Men and women led these groups

I'm confident that the model of rule-by-presbytery is what Paul (and hence Jesus himself)

There is no similarity what so ever in what Paul taught and what Jesus taught.

Paul knew nothing of Jesus the man in Galilee, only the theology that generated around the martyrdom in the Diaspora long after his death in groups that never had seen the man himself.

 

[RossRonin]

You might need to learn a few more things here before commenting on Paul with such certainty

I kinda doubt it. The more theologians know, the less they believe; and most theologians have no more confidence in the testimony of Paul than the typical cosmologist or evolutionary biologist does. Paul said "knowledge puffs up" and sure enough, seminaries and pulpits everywhere are bursting at the seams with over-inflated egos.

So you can understand why I'm not really eager to fill my head with reasons why Paul's letters should not be taken as plain declarations of truth (reality, in other words).

"The revelation to Paul of Jesus Christ himself is what established Paul as the second great pillar of New Testament truth by which all other truth is measured" That is not a historical statement it is one of apologetics and theology. It carries no weight in a historical setting.

It carries significant weight in a historical setting: The historical narrative reveals that Paul withstood Peter to his face at one point; at another point Peter acknowledges the challenging depth of Paul's revelations; and at yet another point (writing to the Corinthians) Paul tramples James' apostolic edict commanding the Gentiles to "abstain from food offered to idols" by telling them to go ahead and eat whatever is set before them, regardless, asking no questions.

If you study Paul's letters, you are forced to admit two things (that is, if you believe what he wrote in some detail about himself in particular): Paul was the exemplary Christian and the prototypical Christian minister. And Paul was instructed personally by Christ, making his teachings and traditions incontrovertible.

Contrary to what you suggest, these are Paul's claims and Paul's alone, among all the apostles. If what you say is true, there ought to be at least one example in New Testament scripture of an apostle thumping his chest and saying, "Be ye followers of me!" But no one even approaches Paul's many scattered references to his primacy.

There is no similarity what so ever in what Paul taught and what Jesus taught.

Of course there is no similarity: Paul preached what he called "my gospel" and warned that God would judge the world "according to my gospel." Rather than similarity, you should look for continuity. And of course, there is perfect continuity from Jesus to Paul. However, that continuity could only have been achieved by granting a man an experience like Paul had: Paul received his instruction from no one, no man, no woman, no apostle, no disciple, nobody but Jesus himself. (Galatians chapter 1 where Paul explains this is basically overlooked or ignored, or as in our case here, explained away and dismissed as rhetoric.)

"Am I not an apostle? am I not free? have I not seen Jesus Christ our Lord? are not ye my work in the Lord?" Paul was unambiguous in his several claims that the things he wrote to the congregations were the commandments of the Lord (that is, unless otherwise specified). There are plenty of clear declarations of Paul's prime authority throughout the New Testament, made by Paul himself simply as a reminder and warning to God's saints: "Those things, which ye have both learned, and received, and heard, and seen in me, do: and the God of peace shall be with you."

 

[outhouse]

So you can understand why I'm not really eager to fill my head with reasons why Paul's letters should not be taken as plain declarations of truth (reality, in other words).

That is fine.

The problem is interpretation and knowing how to put the correct words into context.

It carries significant weight in a historical setting:

No it does not. Not everything is historical that was wrote by that community.

And Paul was instructed personally by Christ

That is not a historical statement, it is only faith.

Historically Jesus died and Paul never heard a word from the man himself and only furthered the theology and mythology in Hellenistic communities.

 

[outhouse]

there is perfect continuity from Jesus to Paul.

Name them. because you are only making ap9ologetic statements. Not credible historical statements.

The two were complete opposites who worshipped completely different forms of Judaism.

Jesus would have been Pauls enemy in life,

Paul received his instruction from no one, no man, no woman, no apostle, no disciple, nobody but Jesus himself

That is apologetic, not historical.

Paul learned about the movement hunting these innocent people down murdering them.

The movement was all over the Diaspora in Pauls time, he was not the only teacher and most people never heard of his epistles. He was a minor figure who became popular in time.

There are plenty of clear declarations of Paul's prime authority

Paul had no authority what so ever. He was never part of any original Galilean movement in Judaism.

He just happened to be a part of a movement that became popular. His version became popular or his communities epistles would have never been used.

 

[outhouse]

. The more theologians know, the less they believe

The truth, education and knowledge often change peoples minds on topics they hold on to.

Factually, the most informed can make the best choices and are often called teachers. That was what Jesus did.