Like this:

Even if Gandalf had told Frodo every step to take, could he have done it alone?

If you are not at Southwestern Seminary, it is hard to describe the culture of thought around this place.  For the most part, we consider the Conservative Resurgence as a major victory for the cause of Christ.  We recognize the next stage of the battle as being for the sufficiency of Scripture, and we also take note of our weaknesses and the threats that are coming as a result of these weaknesses.  What we have not done is found a solid way to implement the theology we have rediscovered.

That we have not found a way is evident in the state of our churches.  We can expect that as churches constrict their liberal tendencies that there are those who will seek more fertile fields for their brand of theology.  Though we ought to admonish and encourage these brothers and sisters to stay with us and submit their theology to Scripture, ultimately we cannot help a good bit of contraction.  If this were the reason that church attendance was shrinking, you would not hear an argument from me.  But it’s not.  The people filing through the backdoor of a church are most often the ones who came in the front door just a few months before.  This sort of contraction is perhaps the greatest problem facing churches today.

Many different solutions have been offered.  We will briefly look at three.  The first one is currently being dealt with and will, hopefully, die out in a generation or so; the so-called “seeker-sensitive” church model.  This has been an attempt to make church pallatable to the world, running the gamut from merely adopting contemporary worship services to becoming fully Emergent, i.e. embracing the postmodern worldview.  While there is something to be said for reaching people where they are and “becoming all things to all men,” this model tends to view Christianity as a product and the church as a marketing tool, which is completely antithetical to Biblical teaching regarding the church.  (For more on this topic, see White & Yeats, Franchising McChurch.)

The second of the three methods seems less caustic and at least attempts to be Biblical.  Many well-meaning and otherwise solid students and professors are advocating personal, individual discipleship.  The thought is that the mature brothers ought to disciple the immature, the learned the unlearned, and so forth.  They look to the relationship between Paul and Timothy and passages like Titus 2 (where the old are called upon to instruct the young, etc.)  A very good friend and coworker of mine is sold out to this idea and has started a summer discipleship program for seminary students.  Does individual discipleship meet the need at hand?  In other words, will it strengthen the churches and help to close the backdoor?

No.  And lest I be seen as a pragmatist, let’s quickly evaluate the two points they make from Scripture.  In the first, Paul was not discipling Timothy; he was mentoring him.  Now before you label this semantics, hear me out.  If by discipleship we mean practical instruction and application in the Christian faith, Timothy received such from his mother and grandmother (2 Tim 1:5) and from his membership in the church at Lystra.  Instead, Paul is giving Timothy professional training as regards the ministry.  This type of mentoring program is absolutely Biblical, especially with young pastors and older pastors in their area.  With regard to Paul’s instruction to Titus, such discipleship is to take place, but (and here’s the kicker) as part of the ministry of the local church.

This brings me (finally) to my point.  Discipleship is exactly what we need to focus on to build vibrant churches and “close the backdoor.”  This is an integral part of the Christian life as displayed in the Great Commission (Matthew 28:18-20):

Jesus said to them, “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth.  Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I commanded you: and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.

I have granted that discipleship is the answer, so why my polemic?  Because individual discipleship is not.  If a young minister needs mentoring in the application of his calling, so be it.  But discipleship as Scripture explains it is not independent but corporate.  It is part of the lifeblood of the local church, and it is there that discipleship must take place if churches are to regain their vivacity.

The problem with Protestantism is that it has built up the false doctrine of “the priesthood of the believer” rather than the Biblical doctrine of “the priesthood of the believers,” plural.  The Protestant view has led to a disconnect in the doctrines of “Christian life” and “ecclesiology” and has minimalized the role of the local church.  The second view (also known as the Anabaptist view) sees the local church as the communion of saints whereby our orthodoxy becomes orthopraxy.  In other words, any attempt to “do discipleship” outside the auspices of a local church, while it may strengthen the individual, will do precious little to close the backdoor.  In fact, as people become increasingly independent and individualistic in their faith, I predict that the whole back wall will be blown off the church, so to speak, and that in the midst of a Conservative Resurgence, the churches of Christ will die on the vine.

Now unto Him who is able to do far more in abundance beyond all that we ask or think, according to the power that works within us, to Him be glory in the church by Christ Jesus throughout all ages, world without end.  Amen.  (Eph 3:20-21)

Advertisement