Patterson & Scoggins on CM Discipleship

As mentioned in the last blog entry, George Patterson and Richard Scoggins present a case for church multiplication in their CM Guide. Last week, I discussed their approach to evangelism, but a look at their view of discipleship is also warranted. Patterson and Scoggins present a basic model of discipleship that consists of twenty-four lessons forming a sort of chronological Bible storying series from creation to the second coming of Christ (p. 98). They believe that discipleship is based on the highest level of Christian authority, namely the commands of Christ found in the Bible. Therefore these twenty-four lessons are obedience-based instruction to new believers to love God, love men, obey immediately, give, pray, and participate in a local church. Although traditions and church preferences play a positive role in Christian development, the Bible is nonetheless to be obeyed immediately above all else.

In terms of church planting, Patterson and Scoggins are advocates of cultural segregation. In other words, they believe that discipleship groups (even churches) should be culturally segregated to allow for more rapid integration of biblical teaching without any unnecessary cultural baggage. They believe that “when we form two cultures to mix in one church, they never integrate” (italics in original, p. 123). They do not break this down into specific categories, but they are careful to distinguish racial and economic strata in a given society. Whether this line of reasoning could be extended to even smaller subdivisions or subcultures is not explored. Nor do they address the separation of genders, as is the secular norm in some societies. Instead, in broad strokes they paint a picture of similar classes and races reaching their own peers. The question that stands in my mind is the case of the urban church with such an amalgamation of cultures that there may be no clear or dominant culture. 

Discipleship is more than a one-on-one training process in this manual. For Patterson and Scoggins, discipleship is presented as the task of the entire church and, by extension, the church church planter for an entire population. They believe that a missionary or church planter should understand his calling to “disciple a people group, no matter how long it takes or what sacrifice God requires” (p. 127). For the authors, discipleship is to “disciple the people [group]” (p. 127).

Perhaps this is why discipleship takes place on two levels. In the local church, discipleship is presented as the training of other potential church planters, whereas outside the local church it is a discovery process whereby a new local church is born. They make a clear distinction between house churches and gathering meetings. There is a difference in function between the two. Whereas the house church exists to be the local body of believers in covenanted discipleship, the gathering meeting is the evangelistic outreach of that body. Is this distinction warranted?

Their approach sends a mixed ecclesiological message about church polity. They warn that individual house churches need outside accountability, thus calling into question the concepts of local church autonomy, cooperation, and government. Without outside accountability, according to Patterson, an isolated house church will “easily develop cultic tendencies that go unchecked” (p. 170). However, Patterson and Scoggins seem to promote the immediate obedience discipleship model as the basis for dealing with potential heresy and therefore encourage house churches to be planted in networks for ongoing external accountability. Perhaps this is one of the stronger points in this model, because obedience and accountability beyond the local church can ensure self-theologizing in dialogue with the larger cross-cultural church. Is it a vague area, though, when we draw such a stark dividing line between communication and accountability. Perhaps, accountability just needs to be defined more clearly.