The Cost of Discipleship and Emerging Theology

Neil, this is a good question and well worth giving some thought to. There was some earlier discussion along these lines here, but it rather petered out. Here are some suggestions to get things started.

I think that the real issue with discipleship in a postmodern environment may be not so much the seriousness or radicalness of the commitment that people make as the content of discipleship. The starting point in this regard is the question: What is the purpose of being Christian or being church? If we understand mission as having a creational scope, as encompassing matters not just of private spirituality and morality, then our discipleship must be defined in relation to a wide spectrum of human experience and activity. There will be a lot more to it than memorizing Bible verses or discovering our spiritual gifts.

This also suggests, naturally, that we should be looking for less individualistic models of discipleship - there is a community dimension to the process that in some respects may be more important than the development of the individual believer. So perhaps we should think in terms of ‘discipling’ communities or networks of relationships. This sort of approach will help us both to prioritize relationships and to permit a wide diversity of commitments and expressions of faith.

There will be less emphasis on conformity to ideal models of discipleship, more emphasis on authenticity, honesty, integrity. There will be much more of the essence of our humanity in our discipleship.

I would want to ground an ‘emerging discipleship’ less in a belief about the ‘truth’ of Christianity as a belief system than in a corporate and individual sense of having been called by God for a purpose. I want to be a ‘disciple’ because I strongly believe that God has called me to be a disciple. It seems to me that this sort of existential commitment fits well into a postmodern cultural context.

I do not regard texts such as Luke 14:25-33 as setting an absolute pattern for discipleship. I would argue that Jesus called his followers quite literally to give up their material livelihoods and social support systems in order to follow him under particular ‘eschatological’ circumstances. Similar circumstances might well arise elsewhere and in different periods of history, but I think we create rather unrealistic expectations of discipleship if we make such radical forms normative for all faith. This emphasis on the ‘particularity’ or ‘contextuality’ of an event or thought is characteristic of postmodernism; modernism, by contrast, tends to look for the general or universal principles that can be drawn from it.

I love this comment! I also have some idea how other contributors to the site might come at it. Luke 14:25-33 applicable to a postmodern world? I’d have thought so - since postmodernism doubts the ‘givens’ of modernism, all the easier to abandon everything.

On the other hand, postmoderns subscribe to the ‘pick and mix’, smorgasbord approach. ‘Spirituality’ is a far more individualistic thing then ‘religion’. It leaves the individual comfortably in control. But as a style, it suits Christianity well.

Put trust in a person and follow him? Maybe less easy for a postmodern - since postmodernism operates on a hermeneutic of suspicion. But was it any easier for a modern? Do the underlying issues ever change?

For me, the gospels sit very comfortably indeed with a postmodern environment. ‘Belonging’ means being committed to small groups of like-minded people, being community amidst the detritus of the surrounding culture, living in an organic way rather than bound by the mechanisms of a greater institution. Living simply, rather than complicated lives, networking, rather than inhabiting a rigid structure, operating relationally rather than mechanically - and so it goes on.

The passage in question still needs some interpretation - and for me, in the first place, to ‘renounce all’ is not an abstract law, but to give Jesus the priority. This begins with attitudes before actions. In relation to him, every other pursuit and interest is radically called into question, relativised, and maybe (but not inevitably) abandoned. Paul abandoned the shape of Judaism, but not the new content with which he filled it. His mission was a trajectory of Judaism, not a new religion.

In relation to Jesus, our lives find their true redeemed purpose and significance. But we are each motivated and gifted differently, and our motivations and gifts need to find their redemptive purpose, and a setting in which they can be expressed. It’s all a question of how things find their place in our lives once everything has been handed over to him.

I am reminded of stories George Verwer told about himself in the early days of Operation Mobilisation, when a bunch of students were getting so radically into ‘forsaking all’, that items of property were constantly being recirculated, and what had been ‘forsaken’ one week, might return to its owner the next!

Also, I’m reminded of how one person was given an expensive watch as a 21st birthday gift by his parents, and he returned it to them, saying he could not receive it as he was now ‘forsaking all’. If ‘forsaking all’ means we are unable to receive gifts of love when they are given, and are also unable to enjoy legitimate expressions of God’s created world, then the principle has become a bondage rather than a pathway to freedom.

But anybody who does not go through the process of bringing their entire life under the loving scrutiny of Jesus has missed something fundamental about being his follower.

I like the recurring idea of community and discipleship. Perhaps we are rediscovering the ideal of modelling ones thoughts and actions after people rather than models.

I would contend that any emerging disciple needs a master or mentor to follow and copy. The person of Jesus is my favourite pick but he isn’t here to comment in person. As a substitute I think that people within the community that model the fruit/life/etc of Christ are worthy of our attention.

In my understanding the move towards organic growth is a part of post-modernism. Our agenda is moving from information about Christianity (which constitutes the bulk of most such courses) to creating/facilitating incarnate knowledge…people.

In this case, an emerging discipleship course could focus on a relationship between two or three people — at least one whom the other wishes to follow after. Isn’t this the idea of discipleship?