I’ts like someone’s slipping me something, but I have no idea who or how. Like they want me to commit sexual immorality or something.

Discipling will always be controversial since the watershed events of 2003. Some congregations didn’t really change much, however, and some seem to be showing signs of a return to a reliance on the concept of discipling.

So what is discipling? One of the problems is that the term can be ambiguous -ICOC preachers have used it as a cover term for teaching, training, correcting and rebuking. But the term has taken its own definition in the past culture and practices under Kip Mckean’s ICOC – ‘one-over-one’ discipling’. It’s also been called ‘shepherding’ and ‘mentoring’ whereby each member of the congregation has a personal discipler or mentor, who has (depending on the congregation) some degree of authority over them.

In the culture of the ICOC it had become implied that any true Christian church must have this system of one-over-one discipling. Though it is argued that Jesus had such relationships over his apostles and wanted it passed down, there is no proof of a one-over-one discipling system practised as essential doctrine in the New Testament churches.

One blogger critic of the ICOC discovered a sermon discussing the relationship of Jonathan and David and that it resembled an effective discipling relationship. The critic alleged that the problem arose, however, when the preacher claimed that David’s falling into the sin of adultery was because of a failure to replace a ‘discipler’ in his life after the death of Jonathan.

If this is true, what are the implications? Surely this would be attributing a modern concept (of discipling) over David. Yes, he had godly friendships that help him in his walk, but the responsibility to have a personal discipler was an unknown concept for the people of the day. Besides, the bible cleary attributes the impetus for his sin to laziness (as Kings should lead their armies in war, not stay at the palace), not the lack of a personal human leader (2 Samuel 11:1-2).

Interpreting scripture in light of one-over-one discipling is dangerous and borders on idolatry. I thought I  might coin a name for the idol: ‘Disciplon’. If you start to make the assumption that the only way to be righteous is by having a godly mentor, it’s in danger of becoming a core belief. We can only obtain  righteousness through Jesus -his death on the cross and our faithful response to it.

Does that mean it’s wrong to have a spiritual mentor, a godly leader with a personal relationship in our lives? Of course not, but it shouldn’t be what we rely on, and having it institutionalized in doctrine is dangerous for false leaders and imposters can use the system and take protégés for themselves as well. Bad leaders who take on roles as disciplers can wield damaging influence over their followers and should they rise up through the ranks, can lead whole congregations and regions astray. It can also be argued that Pharisees also ‘discipled’ their followers to be just like them.

The temptation for ICOC congregations is to be seduced by former glory and a significant feature that set them apart from other congregations was the one-over-one discipling system. But to revive (or continue) this system might be justified by the belief that ‘discipling’ is an essential doctrine with the implications of one-over-one discipling being the same thing. In other words, they’ll need to erect the idol ‘Disciplon’.

There are many godly personalities in the bible who did and didn’t have mentors and personal leaders in their life at various times but they all made do by relying on their relationship with God.

Due to my Christian beliefs, every now and then I like to try to put a psalm to music. I did a couple of psalms a few years ago but never put them up on the net, but I’ve recently worked out a kind of ‘mod-rock’ accompaniment to Psalm 93 and have decided to put the demo up on Reverb Nation.

I suppose one reason for doing it is for my own benefit as a kind of espression of faith, and I like to use the psalms because they express truths about the nature of God and man better than I ever could. Psalm 93 uses personification of the sea as it gives praise to God. Which brings me to the video -I’ve taken some footage of the local Maroubra ocean cliffs (in Sydney Australia), and I’m going to attempt make a clip to go along with the song if all goes well.

In the meantime, I’ve got an audio demo up on Reverb nation:

http://www.reverbnation.com/donakrv#!/artist/artist_songs/473201

A strong theme on ‘religion and power’ popped up via the villain, who views the best way to strengthen his power as a warlord of a desolate town is to use religion over the non-educated townsfolk (only he and the hero, as older people, remember how to read from pre-apocalyptic days). It was an interesting reflection on Christianity and right-wing politics and if it wasn’t for the holy protagonist who had sympathy and reverence for the Word of God, I would’ve almost got the impression the whole film was taking a pot-shot at religion. In the end it expressed the value of religion as long as it isn’t in the hands of political abusers and bullies. The action, acting (with Denzel Washington) and cinematography were good too.

Trailer
http://youtu.be/kAMUv22y1og

Info
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1037705/

Having spent many years in the ICOC when Kip Mckean was at the helm I was left with the deep impression of what might be called ‘The Israel syndrome’ -which in my mind is kind of dangerous. In the heyday leaders often alluded to our ‘Kingdom of God’ -the ICOC congregations, as kind of the ‘modern day Israel’ -God’s exclusive people. And the danger of that of course is that it leads to ‘exclusive-ism’, elitism and arrogance -especially for leaders who might think they’re on a higher rung closer to God simpler because they’re a leader of a certain group of churches.

Looking at the split of Israel from Judah, I could allude to the ICOC breaking away from the Churches of Christ (and thus many ICOC preachers calling them the ‘mainline’ Church of Christ) as Israel breaking from Judah, or perhaps vice-versa. Then again I called make the same allusion to Kip Mckean’s ‘Souled Out’ movement and the ICOC cooperative.

My point is that I don’t think it’s wise to make direct allusions of one’s church franchise to the biblical accounts of Israel, but instead just learn the lessons and seek insights from the accounts.

The interesting thing about the split of Israel from Judah is there’s no obvious ‘good guy’ versus ‘bad guy’. Neither does one side have the exclusive support of God while the other is completely abandoned by God. Because of Solomon’s idolatry (1 Kings 11:33) God gave 10 tribes of Israel to Jeroboam, one of Solomon’s officials. In verse 38 God promises Jeroboam to be with him if he is faithful to Him. Unfortunately, down the line Jeroboam gives in to fear, abandons the faith and sets up a phoney religion in the form of golden calves.

2 Chronicles11 fills in some gaps for Rehoboam, King of Judah, who seemed to provide the better alternative for those Israelites seeking the Lord, allowing them to come to Jerusalem to worship instead of getting involved in golden calf idols. However, by 2 Chronicles12 it was apparent that Judah had also been unfaithful to God and that God was about to abandon them to the Egyptian army. The king humbled up just in time so destruction was avoided and instead Judah became subject to Egypt.

It seems that both sides had their tumultuous relationship with God. The problem was never which ‘side’ one was on, but their direct loyalty and faithfulness to God.

Another interesting note is that trouble often happens when the kings get fortified and established: Jeroboam in 1Kings12:45 which leads to him setting up the golden calves to dissuade people going to Jerusalem, and Rehoboam in 2 Chronicles12:1as it sums it all up in one sentence:

After Rehoboam’s position as King was established and he had become strong, he and all Israel (a- That is, Judah) with him abandoned the law of the Lord. (NIV)

Perhaps for modern day churches the real tests and challenges come after they become established and strong.

Another little side-note: the scriptures include the role of advice in kings’ decisions, and it doesn’t always lead to good ones. Rehoboam chooses to listen to the young upstarts instead of the wise elders in dealing with the issue of the Israelites’ conscripted labour. (However, it seems this was part of God’s plan as in 1Kings12:15.) Also in 1Kings12:28 Jeroboam sought advice that led to him setting up the golden calves.

The issue of ‘advice’ has been touchy in the ICOC and there are some things to learn for us who may have been led to overly rely on advice. We still need to consider who we get advice from, we still need to do our own homework and seek God in the decision and understand that the responsibility for the decision rests on us, not the advisors.

A significant issue raised was that of the ‘religious club’ or ‘clique’, because Jesus noted how the guests picked the places of honour. It seems a strong tendency, not just of religious groups, but of any groups (political, commercial etc) to form cliques at the top. It’s just human nature, when people reach ‘higher’ places it’s a tendency for them to set up barriers and to strengthen their own position.

Jesus’ teachings are, of course, totally contrary to this -God’s banquet is thrown wide open to all, because it’s not based on any social status, mode of success or privilege, but faith. But criticism of the religious establishment has been that it sets up it’s own cliques and strives to control the Great Banquet -i.e. determine who’s ‘in’ and who’s ‘out’. In Luke11:52 Jesus criticised the teachers of the law for taking away the ‘key of knowledge’ saying “You yourselves have not entered, and you have hindered those who were entering”.

There were comments made at the bible talk that churches today can fall for the same trap -the cliques, the seeming importance of the higher clergy etc, and it becomes a turn off for those seeking out Christianity. And it’s the greatest challenge facing all and any Christian congregation especially in leadership. The challenge is also to imitate the examples of Jesus who as king and Messiah walked around poor and gave attention to the poor and needy. Likewise Peter and John and Paul were never wealthy and were often at the ‘end of the procession’.

Perhaps the biggest challenge to Christian leaderships is middle-class security. To blend in with the rest of suburban comfort and keep up with the Jones’. Not that there’s necessarily anything wrong with that, but it’s become a religion of our society. In sermons you’ll often here how we have ‘idols’ out there in the form of money, materialism, sex, pornography etc… But it seems that middle-class security is another of them. We’re a society geared towards paying off the mortgage and sending the kids to college, etc. That’s probably the greatest idol. Most people aren’t trying to be the next Bill Gates but rather just keep ahead in the great suburban race to have a comfortable home that’s slightly bigger and better than their neighbours.

If this is the race that motivates some in leadership, then there is going to be the temptation for cliques, conservatism, protectionism and even groups within groups, along with techniques to keep the congregations in check.

Back in the day, if there was one thing the International Churches of Christ with Kip McKean did right, it was striving to live out this passage. That meant encouraging the practice of confessing your sins and walking in truth. It was about helping each other with our struggles, helping each other overcome, and the only way to do that is through honesty.  That kind of Christianity was great even though it seemed hard. It was about change, freedom and becoming new.
Now I believe this passage applies on two levels -one an individual level, the other on a congregational level, that is, aimed at the whole church. It’s up to the individual to walk in the light, to keep their walk with God real.
However, in the ICOC sometimes there was pressure:”you’ve got to confess to your discipler”. Or people relied too much on their discipler, rather than rely on God. Back in the time when John wrote the letters, Christians didn’t have personal disciplers. They had each other, and built relationships of trust rather than try to force it.
On a congregational level, the passage applies to he whole culture of a church, and it starts with the leadership, who guide the culture and basically responsible for it. If the leaders aren’t walking in the light, how can they possibly guide their congregation to walk in the light? And if they’re not walking in the light, how are they walking? In darkness -which is the opposite to truth: it probably means a blank of deceit, like a ‘white-washed wall’.
1 John is an amazing letter in how clear it is and it’s a challenge for us all. If you’re not in the light, you’re in the darkness. You may be preaching the bible, reading it and studying it, but you’re not walking as a Christian. Then the only way to exist in the church is through falseness. Because, like it’s always preached, God tries to get our attention. You either respond honestly and take your medicine for the time, or you put it off by playing games.

For example, the first of the 36 strategies says: “Cross the sea without the heavens knowing”, meaning hide your secrets and strategies and deceive those who might be watching. Basically, the art of deceit is your greatest weapon.

In strategy number 8 it says “Openly repair one pathway but secretly follow another.” So while you’re presenting one show or ‘face’, behind the scenes work on something else.

In strategy number 11 it says “Let a plum tree wither for a peach tree to grow”, which means to sacrifice the less important in order to preserve the most important.

If you claim to be a Christian, are you really following the scriptures, or the 36 strategies? When power is at stake, perhaps in the upper echelons of leadership, what’s being represented -New Testament style leadership, or the 36 strategies?

(Not to say the 36 strategies are all bad -as mentioned they’re commonly referred to in the cut-throat world of business and corporate strategy in the competitive fight for market share.)

But if you’re claiming to be a Christian, to follow Jesus and rock up to church to fill the part, but the behind the scenes you’re ambitious, competitive and manipulative in order to get ahead in leadership, aren’t you really following strategy number 11? Your “open pathway” is the Christian life, but your “secret pathway” is the 36 strategies, or basically just playing politics and power games.

The bible looks at deceit differently: Jeremiah 9:8 Their tongue is a deadly arrow; it speaks with deceit. With his mouth each speaks cordially to his neighbor, but in his heart he sets a trap for him.

Looking back on the history of the International Churches of Christ, did not some of these strategies come into play? When leadership was competitive? When the pressure was on? When you saw leaders fall from grace, and accepted the ‘party line’ that came from the pulpit? Did it not become common practice for judgments and decisions to be made about and for people behind closed doors without any chance of their defense?

Even strategy number 11 -the weak neglected, so the ‘peach tree’ could grow? But that’s not New Testament Christianity where the weak are honored, is it?

My point is, what kind of culture is really fostered in the high levels of leadership? Is it the sort of culture that grows more and more into the mold of Christ, or is it the sort of culture where you need to rely on the 36 strategies more and use the bible as the “open pathway”? If there’s competitiveness, manipulation, deceit and power-play going on behind closed doors, then you judge the which type of culture it is.

For those considering leaving based on conscience

Perhaps you were a leader (of any level) doing the right thing and you fell foul of such strategies and manipulations and lost your position. Then there there are two roads to avoid -one is to return in kind, imitate such strategies (such as forming alliances with leaders for your own advantage, rather than supporting godly leaders out of faith, and slandering/manipulating against leaders who won’t advance your position) and the other road is to bail out altogether and become bitter. The main thing is to keep your faith and integrity -this may mean leaving, or it may mean staying (and even being ‘demoted’ if you’re not in with the power-brokers). But consider the principle “bad company corrupts good character”.

Now consider strategy 19: “Remove the firewood from under the cooking pot” -wearing down or taking away the resources that props someone up. What are the “resources” for being a Christian? I.e., what is the root of your faith? If it’s your relationship with God with daily prayer and the scriptures then no one can remove that resource, or as the bible puts it: separate you from Christ.

But if your “resource” is tied to the church (emotional reliance on fellowship, discipling network, direction from leadership etc) instead of you own relationship with God, then you are reliant on the church, not on God. And that means, in a sense, people (or leaders etc) can remove your “resource”. You can fall victim to “strategy 19″. (I suppose this can also apply to financial reliance if you’re working for the church. How strong is your faith?)

So it’s important to base your faith on Christ, because It means that if you decide to leave a church based on conscience, your won’t be shaken. You won’t need to stay in any fellowship that goes astray because it’s your only “resource”. One of the mind games of the former ICOC was the implied teaching “leaving this church equals leaving God”. I don’t think it’s taught anymore, and I think generally there’s no pressure regarding this: but some individuals who are leaders may still employ this kind of mindset.

I’m not automatically opposed to the idea of one-over-one discipling, but the problem lies in the autocratic and controlling culture that can develop. With that kind of discipling comes power, and perhaps too much power that’s not appropriate for spiritual leadership.

Paul gave advice to singles regarding whether they should get married -he never assumed the control over when and who they could marry. Such a personal decision wasn’t his responsibility -but he felt responsible for helping the church remain on track in faith, deeds and doctrine.

Saul, of the Old Testament, and Pharaoh, were two leaders who had power, and held on to power even after resisting God’s will for them to change. The more God sent them a message or challenged them, the more they held on to their own agenda and things just got worse.

The problem was, it wasn’t just about them. In Pharaoh’s case, there were the Israelites, God’s people, who were being oppressed. In Saul’s case, there was David, a genuine man of faith, with his band of mighty men. David even helped Saul get out of a jam, through his faith, when facing Goliath. But once Saul saw David as a threat, he was obsessed, and tried everything to destroy the threat.

When you have a leadership like that, and if people are being oppressed, then they call out to God to be freed of the control -especially if the control is suppressing the very faith they strive to live by (by twisting the beliefs into the leader’s own agenda). It’s then a simple message to that kind of oppressive leader: “let my people go”.

In modern day churches, abusive, controlling and deceitful leaders can also take control of Christians -God’s people. And again, when people are being controlled or oppressed, they cry out to God.

In the ICOC (International Churches of Christ) there was a common expression -that “God’s trying to get your attention”. Does this not apply to all, members and leaders, when not living according to the right path? If leaders stubbornly refuse to allow the ‘freedom in Christ’ for some people (whether in their church or outside of it), then isn’t it the same message for them: “let my people go” ?