In order to best understand
discipleship in the specific context of the local church, there should be a
proper theological understanding of the local church in general. The Bible gives both explicit and implicit
instructions for understanding discipleship in the local church. The church has
historically dealt conceptually with discipleship concepts, and more recent
scholarship related to discipleship has emerged from theologians and
practitioners. Using this as a solid foundation, I submit that the best locale for Christian discipleship and, by implication,
pastoral leadership is in the context of the local church.
Perhaps the
primary passages related to local church discipleship come from the Pauline
epistles. In Ephesians 4:11-16, we are told that God gave to the church some to
be pastors. In Paul’s letters to Timothy, we can find clear qualifications for
leadership in the local church. Additionally, there are nineteen qualifications
that can arguably only be proven within the context of a local church
environment. If local church leaders are the models for mature discipleship,
these passages can help inform a construct of biblically based
ecclesiology.
Some of the more
proficient American writers of the late twentieth century, like
Mark Dever and
John R.W. Stott, have made some insightful statements about these explicit
biblical bases for discipleship in the local church. Dever points to the
epistles and the book of Acts where “Paul and Barnabas were sent out by the
local church. Paul tells Timothy, the pastor of Ephesus, to entrust gospel
truths to other faithful men who will teach others (2 Tim. 2:2).”
Stott admits that “the chief function of the pastor is teaching, for the chief
duty of the shepherd is to feed or pasture his sheep.”
These functionary aspects of pastoring place training within the locus of local
church discipleship.
There are, moreover,
some biblical texts that implicitly teach the priority of
ecclesiology in
discipleship
and
pastoral training. For example, Dever cites the pastoral relationship in
Hebrews 13 “where the members are told to consider the lives of the leaders (in
verse 7) before they are told to obey those leaders (in verse 17).”
The
one another passages, like John 13, also give a basis for discipleship within
the context of a community of faith. Dever points to the letter to the
Galatians in the discourse about the fruits of the Spirit as providing the
“relational context in the reality of the church which is absolutely perfect
for identifying who is gifted to be a minister, for challenging such
individuals, and for raising them up.”
Even some
contemporary Canadian house church and European cell church practitioners like
Alan Hirsch, Rad Zdero, and Howard Astin have begun to make their contribution
in the debate about Christ’s model of leadership training as a local church
model for discipleship. Expressing an opposition to formal seminary models, Hirsch
makes this distinction:
This is simply not the way that
Jesus taught us how to develop disciples. And it is not that Jesus lacked an
appropriate model of the Academy – the Greeks had developed it hundreds of
years before Christ, and it was well entrenched in the Greco-Roman world. The
Hebrew worldview was a life-oriented one and was not primarily concerned with
concepts and ideas
in themselves
[emphasis in original]. On the other hand, it appears to me that the Academy is
almost solely organized around the transfer of concepts and ideas.
Astin believes this is a reflection
of Kingdom principles in Scripture and suggests that “Jesus’
primary purpose [emphasis in original] for
his Church…is to make disciples.”
Zdero
points to the synagogue mentality that must have been prevalent during the
first century to suggest that Christ’s own model of training was congruent with
those same training techniques and therefore must have been copied by both
Peter and Paul.
Not only does Astin go so
far as to say that “Jesus trained his leaders by apprenticeship,” but that “indeed,
as we scan the pages of the New Testament, there is no other model of
leadership training.”
At
least for these writers, New Testament discipleship was instituted by Christ
and continued as local churches were planted.
Bill Hull supports
a line of apostolic authority within the local church context that can be
traced from Jerusalem and Antioch when he says,
Instead of following the biblical
example and having the best-qualified leaders chose [sic] other leaders, some
of today’s evangelical churches do it backward. They charge a nominating
committee with placing names on the ballot for selection of leaders. Though I
do not wish to trash congregationalism, when the group that selects the
potential leaders are not properly qualified, trouble easily ensues. Typically
the church chooses names from the floor of the annual business meeting; the
only qualification becomes a single person’s opinion. Without discussion, names
are voted on.
In contrast to the aforementioned
model, Zdero points out the following:
Evidence suggests that in the
first-century Jewish synagogue system – which provided
the cultural and religious
background for the emergence of the early Christian house churches – a team of
elders was responsible for each local synagogue. Similarly, the biblical record
lends itself to a plurality of elders managing a given Christian community,
rather than any one individual. Thus, ideally, each house church would likely have
had a small group of elders.
Richard Ascough provides additional
insight into this scenario with his observation that “the synagogue was
governed by a group of elders in a
presbyterial form of government.”
Regardless of polity preferences, though, these observations connect a
synagogue-like plurality of leaders to a discipleship training model within New
Testament local churches. This, though, gives clarity to the discussion of
discipleship as a local church discipline.
In Russian
evangelical churches, that plurality in leadership continues. Harris notes that
modern Russian “Baptist preachers, particularly the elders, have been given a
great deal of spiritual authority in the churches.”
The
purpose of multiple leaders is to ensure ongoing discipleship through the
administration of baptism as a formal requirement for leadership and spiritual
maturity as an informal requirement.
Penner believes that “in the training efforts of Jesus and the Apostle Paul, we
see how this concept takes shape within the framework of the emerging church
and its mission.”
This was not limited to a specific “number of leading persons in the apostolic
church. Rather, it was to train every person belonging to the church.”
If this is true, then the function of the local church is to all its members to
maturity.
During the
patristic period, Tertullian argued for a definitive separation of biblical
theology as defined and propagated within the church and the philosophical academics
in extra-ecclesial institutions.
In the Middle Ages, Erasmus furthered this sentiment with a clear job
description for clergy to educate laity toward Christian maturity. Alister E.
McGrath describes Erasmus’ understanding of clerical function as educational in
that “there is no room for any superstitions which give the clergy a permanent
status superior to their lay charges.”
McGrath notes that Erasmus never makes reference to the local church in his
Enchiridion militis Christiani, but
instead he focuses on the direct personal relationship between the Christian
Soldier and his God. So, even among the early church fathers, there was some
understanding of the task of the local church to make life-long disciples.
It was only during
the twelfth century that theological training and, by implication, discipleship
became associated with academic pursuits. At that time, medieval institutions
through western Europe added a faculty of theology to their higher educational
programs. McGrath notes,
Initially,
the study of Christianity in western Europe was focused on schools attached to
cathedrals and monasteries.
Theology was generally understood to be concerned with practical matters, such
as issues of prayer and spirituality, rather than as a theoretical subject.
However, with the founding of the universities, the academic study of the
Christian faith gradually moved out of monasteries and cathedrals into the
public arena.
Over the course of time, “theology
came to be seen as a theoretical rather than a practical subject, despite
reservations about this development.”
McGrath
bemoans the fact that “theology has become fragmented into a collection of
unrelated theoretical and practical disciplines, and lost any sense of
coherence.”
In contrast, “the
writings of individuals such as Richard Baxter and Jonathan Edwards are
saturated with the belief that theology finds its true expression in pastoral
care and the nurture of souls.”
Adopting the same
categories as Millard Erickson for describing the local church,
John Hammett also places discipleship within the primary locus of local church. He argues
that while the “idea of local church must be seen with some flexibility,”
especially in relation to size, he sees the local church as “the body of
Christ, possessing full ecclesial status.”
For that reason, Hammett argues for the primacy of the local church in a
full-orbed ecclesiology. Moreover, he states that a proper biblical theology
“gives priority to the local church”
and demands participation in the local church by any who minister in parachurch
organizations. Without participation in a local, covenanted body of believers,
apparently no one can truly be discipled.
Along those same
lines, Hammett appeals to a demand for regenerate church membership and church discipline
when needed.
Although institutions
like Bible colleges and seminaries may reprimand or reward their students, they
cannot properly administer church discipline since they are not extensions of
the local church. The local church is the place where discipline or
discipleship is done.
