Opposition to one-on-one discipling

I’m starting this blog by simply explaining my opposition to one-on-one discipling. Since the Henry Kriete letter I know a lot of churches have changed -some totally abandoned this discipling system, others didn’t, and others let it be optional for members. I also know that for those who’ve been through the mechanisms of the ICOC discipling system that everyone has had their own experiences and their own story to tell -some found it abusive while others found it helpful.

Anyway, here are my convictions:

Firstly, I feel though it may have been helpful for some, it can open up ways for exploitation by unscrupulous leaders. I use 2 Corinthians11:20 as a reference which talks about false leader’s exploitation and taking advantage of a congregation -if one of Paul the Apostle’s churches was prone to this, then any congregation is prone. I also feel that it’s obvious to say, the control of one-on-one discipling is totally contrary to the principles of freedom such as talked about in Galatians 5 and led to a lot of abuse and unnecessary control over members. In fact it’s probably the most significant factor in giving the ICOC the reputation as a spiritually repressive cult.

An example of how it can be abused is where decisions can be made about a member between his discipler and a leader without the member being present or having any say in the matter. It can even open up a kind of slander behind the scenes, such as “well, this bro isn’t doing well spiritually right now, I don’t think he should date this sister”… or whatever personal details may be discussed.

Furthermore, though the ICOC claimed to be restoring New Testament Christianity, I can find no such system of each member having their own discipler or personal mentor in the pages of the New Testament. This may seem kind of obvious, but it came to be a kind of prerequisite in the ICOC culture as a Christian church -the belief that if a church doesn’t have one-on-one discipling it is not a New Testament church. I guess the justification for it went along the lines of “Speak where the bible is silent” (and pointing to how Jesus led his 12 apostles and the 72 etc), but if it’s considered essential for a church and the gospel (where it’s not even conceived of in the New Testament) then surely it’s become a heresy. In a sense it’s “going beyong what is written”.

Now because of the danger of abuse and the thousands of testimonies against it, I’ve decided to take a strong view against it, even though now it’s not a prerequisite in some churches under the ICOC banner (but it is prerequisite in some churches). From reading across the net I also get the feeling some leaders want to bring it back in and encourage it to be restored to congregations.

There’s one more aspect of one-on-one discipling that makes it disagreeable in my mind, and that is it fostered a kind of dependence to the point of not taking responsibility for one’s life. Under the culture of the ICOC asking advice from one’s discipler often became asking permission.

I’m not against Christians leaders training Christians and young Christians needing to learn but when one-on-one discipling gets so instilled in the culture to the point of controling and manipulating even mature members then it’s just no biblical.

I’m not a member of any church at the moment (I’m in Sydney but I’m not sure if I’ll be here permanently) and I feel there is a bit of confusion in the post ICOC -I hear of people drawing lines in the sand asking “which side are you on” so to speak. Well, I’m on the anti-one-on-one discipling side.