If
you are a member of the International Churches of Christ, it might
be a good idea to consult with your discipler/'discipleship
partner' (DP) to see if Kip allows 'true christians' to read this
book.============================================================================
{Republisher's Notes: This section consists of the Table of Contents and Chapter 1. Chapters 2 through 14 are linked to this section. If you find a glitch or have a comment, please send feedback to: <measures@mail.vcnet.com>.} Link back to the Somis Library
If
you are a member of the International Churches of Christ, it might
be a good idea to consult with your discipler/'discipleship
partner' (DP) to see if Kip allows 'true christians' to read this
book.PART I
Church Growth Research Concerning the Discipling Movement Among
Churches of Christ
By Flavil R. Yeakley, Jr
1..The Discipling Movement: A Mixed Blessing... {you are
here}
2..A Psychological Study...23
3.Alternative Explanations
Examined...39
4.A Discussion of Differences...48
5.Dealing with the Discipling
Dilemma...69
PART II
The. Impact of the Discipling Movement On Mission Work Done by the
Churches of Christ..
By Howard W. Norton
6.Mission Work: In Search of the Perfect
Solution....89
7.Discipling Churches: An Imperfect Missions
Solution...99
PART III
Historical Roots of the Discipling Movement Among Churches of
Christ
By Don Vinzant
8..Roots of the Modern Discipling
Movement...123
9..What Other Groups Have Learned About the
Discipling Movement...141
10..A Select Annotated Bibliography of
Materials Generally Unfavorable to Modern Authoritarian Discipling
Tactics..158
PART IV
A Reference Guide to the Discipling Movement Among Churches of
Christ
By Gene Vinzant
11..A Guide to the Discipling
Movement.....171
12..Pillar Churches and Future Church
Plantings....177
13..Boston Churches Country by
Country....183
14..Boston and Statistics.....189
Appendix, by Flavil R. Yeakley,
Jr......192
Editor's Update, Second Printing, August,
1988......206
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Flavil R. Yeakley, Jr. has served as the director of the Church
Growth Institute at Abilene Christian University since 1984. He was
chairman of the speech communication program at the University of
Tulsa from 1974 through 1984. Prior to that, he spent over 25 years
in full-time local church work as a gospel preacher.
He is the author of *Why Churches Grow*, *Church Leadership and
Organization*, several booklets and tracts, and numerous
articles.
He is a member of the North American Society for Church Growth, the
Association of Statisticians of American Religious Bodies, the
Religious Speech Communication Association, and the Association for
Psychological Type.
He received his B.A. degree in psychology from the University of
Houston in 1970, his M.A. degree in speech communication from the
University of Houston in 1972, and his Ph. D. degree in speech
communication from the University of Illinois in 1975.
p1
The discipling movement has appeared in several religious groups
under various labels. Several denominations have experienced growth
as a result of the discipling movement in various places throughout
the world. Those same denominations, however, have been troubled by
the doctrines and practices associated with this movement.
The word "discipling" is used in this movement to mean much more than
making converts. It is used primarily to describe a system of intense
training and close personal supervision of the Christians being
discipled. Disciples are regarded as being superior to mere
Christians. Disciples are said to be Christians who have received
special training. This training includes much more than mere
teaching. There is an intense one-on-one relationship between the
discipler and the Christian being discipled. The discipler gives
detailed personal guidance to the Christian being discipled. This
guidance may include instructions concerning many personal matters of
a totally secular nature. The person being discipled is taught to
submit to the discipler. Furthermore, the person being discipled is
taught to imitate the discipler. Christians being discipled are
required to confess their sins to their discipler. Such confession is
followed by rebuke, correction, admoni-
p2
tion, and prayer. If the person being discipled seems reluctant to
confess sins, the discipler asks probing personal questions to elicit
the confession.
Discipling is hierarchical. There is a clear distinction between the
discipler and the person being discipled. A Christian might have many
peer relationships, but only one person is that Christian's
discipler. That discipler is the person who must be imitated and
obeyed. After a Christian has been discipled for a while, that
Christian is expected to start discipling others. The result is a
pyramid of relationships that resembles a multi-level marketing
system. In various denominations where the discipling movement
has appeared, the typical pattern has been for the founding pastor of
a church to be at the top of the pyramid. That founding pastor
disciples a small group of other pastors. Each of them, in turn,
disciples a small group of lay leaders. The lay leaders then disciple
members one step lower in the pyramid. That hierarchical system
continues through as many steps as may be needed as the discipling
movement spreads. The growth of the discipling network typically goes
beyond one local congregation to include many other congregations
established by the parent group.
This description of discipling, of course, does not perfectly fit
every group that has ever been a part of the discipling movement.
This composite description, however, is very close to each of the
groups that has been a part of this movement. The focus of this study
is on one particular manifestation of this movement: the discipling
movement among churches of Christ. There is general agreement among
those inside and outside this movement that the Boston Church of
Christ is the
p3
leader of this movement today. That congregation is the primary focus
of this study.
For the benefit of any readers who are not familiar with this
group known as "churches of Christ," we need to begin with some
comments about various terms. If conditions were ideal, it would not
be necessary to use labels that set one group of Christians apart
from other Christians. Conditions, however, are not ideal. Christians
are not perfect. The church has experienced numerous divisions
throughout its history. Discussion of these divisions is not possible
without the use of some labels. Such labels could be used in a
judgmental way. In this study these labels are used only to describe
a social reality with all judgment being left up to God.
The term "churches of Christ" is used throughout Christendom with
reference to the spiritual fellowship of all the saved. Pioneers of
America's Restoration Movement--such men as Thomas and Alexander
Campbell, Barton W. Stone, and many others--used this term with
reference to their congregations to emphasize their purpose of being
Christians only.
Three heirs of the Restoration Movement are listed in Churches and
Church Membership in the United States 1980.1 The smallest of
these groups has the most liberal theology. They are known as the
"Christian Church (Disciples of Christ)." They are listed as having
4,324 congregations with 817,650 members in the United States. A more
conservative fellowship that is somewhat larger is listed as
"Christian Churches and Churches of Christ" because some of their
congregations use one designation and some the other. This group is
listed as having 5,293 congregations with 929,650 members in
p4
the United States. The largest and most conservative of these three
groups is know as "churches of Christ." They are listed as having
12,719 congregations with 1,239,612 members in the United States.
This fellowship differs from the group known as "Christian Churches
and Churches of Christ" in two significant ways. Churches of Christ
believe that what is done in congregational worship must be
specifically authorized in New Testament teaching. Because of this,
they do not use instrumental music in worship. The group known as
"Christian Churches and Churches of Christ" uses instrumental music
in worship because they believe that Christians can do anything in
worship that is not specifically forbidden in New Testament
teaching.
Churches of Christ typically use the plural word "churches" rather
than the singular form to emphasize their independence as local
congregations with no central denominational organization or
headquarters. They often use the lower case "c" in the word
"churches" to emphasize their purpose of identifying with the
fellowship of all the saved without forming any denominational
organization. The Boston Church of Christ and other churches of
Christ identified with the discipling movement grew out of this most
conservative of the Restoration Movement fellowships.
Several different terms have been used to describe the discipling
movement among churches of Christ. Some supporters have used the term
"restoring churches. "2 Others call them "multiplying churches. "3
These self-serving terms are judgmental toward other churches of
Christ and thus have not been accepted by most critics of this
movement. Some critics have called this the "total commitment
movement." Supporters have not generally accepted this term because
it focuses on just one part of what this movement is about. Most
critics have been reluctant to use this term because it implies that
the critics are opposed to total commitment.
p5
The most common terms which critics of this movement have employed
use some form of the word "Crossroads." They talk about the
"Crossroads movement," "Crossroads churches," the "Crossroads
philosophy," or "Crossroadsism." These terms have been used because
of the key role the Crossroads Church of Christ in Gainesville,
Florida, played in the development of this movement. This discipling
movement was first introduced into churches of Christ by Charles H.
(Chuck) Lucas in this congregation.
Under the leadership of Chuck Lucas, the Crossroads Church of Christ
achieved rapid growth through its campus ministry at the University
of Florida. They began training people for similar ministries
elsewhere. Soon other churches of Christ wanted campus ministers who
had been trained at Crossroads. However, most of these churches that
employed Crossroads-trained campus ministers eventually divided into
discipling churches and churches that oppose this approach.
Terms that identify all discipling churches with the Crossroads
congregation are not especially useful. Supporters have never
accepted these terms. Furthermore, leadership of this movement has
now shifted away from Crossroads. Lucas left the congregation in 1985
and is no longer the leader of this movement. The Boston Church of
Christ is now the leading congregation among the discipling
churches.
Terms such as "discipling churches" or the "discipling movement" seem
to be the only terms acceptable both to the supporters and the
critics of this movement. The
p6
discipling churches use the term "discipling" in reference to a
particular form of evangelism and a particular way of teaching,
guiding, and influencing people after they have become Christians. If
other churches of Christ use the term "discipling" at all, they
generally limit its application to evangelism. The idea of discipling
someone who is already a disciple is foreign to their understanding
about how this term should be used. Other churches of Christ practice
evangelism, but not in the same way the discipling churches do. They
also provide teaching, guidance, and influence for those who have
already become Christians, but not in the way the discipling churches
do. For this reason, they do not mind not being called
"discipling churches."
Supporters and critics generally agree that the Boston Church of
Christ is now the leader of the discipling movement among churches of
Christ. The rapid growth of this congregation has been amazing.
Indeed, that growth is the most persuasive argument in favor of the
discipling approach.
The Boston Church of Christ was originally known as the Lexington
Church of Christ since it began in Lexington, Massachusetts, a suburb
of Boston. The congregation had existed for several years without
achieving much growth. Membership in the spring of 1979 was around
40. In June of that year, they employed a Crossroads-trained minister
and things have never been the same since.
Kip McKean was converted at the Crossroads Church of Christ while he
was a student at the University of Florida. He was trained by Chuck
Lucas. After leaving Gainesville, McKean attempted to develop
discipling ministries in several congregations. These efforts met
strenuous opposition. In June of 1979, Kip and his wife, Elena, moved
to Lexington, Massachusetts, to work
p7
with the small congregation in that Boston suburb. They brought with
them about 10 young people who were being trained for service in
discipling ministries. Half of the members who were in the Lexington
Church of Christ when McKean moved there eventually left--most
because of their opposition to the discipling approach. That left a
very small work force, but that small group achieved a remarkable
record of rapid growth.
There were 68 baptisms in the last six months of 1979. Then there
were 170 baptisms in 1980, 250 baptisms in 1981, 365 baptisms in
1982, 402 baptisms in 1983, 594 baptisms in 1984, 703 baptisms in
1985, and 818 baptisms in 1986. In the first seven-and-one-half years
of McKean's ministry with this congregation, they baptized 3,370
people. It now appears that they will baptize between 900 and 1,000
in 1987. That would mean a total of well over 4,000 baptisms in just
eight-and-one-half years.
Growth was so rapid that the Lexington Church of Christ soon was too
large for its building. They rented the building of the Arlington
Baptist Church until they grew too large for that meeting place. They
started meeting in the Boston Opera House. When they outgrew that
facility, they started meeting in the Boston Gardens where the Boston
Celtics play basketball and the Boston Bruins play ice hockey. Early
in 1987, they were averaging around 2,500 in attendance on Sunday
mornings. Virtually all the members were attending one of the 62
house church meetings conducted each Wednesday evening and at least
one of the 260 Bible Talks conducted at various locations throughout
the Boston area each week.
Early in his ministry with the Lexington/Boston Church of Christ,
McKean decided that the discipling approach could not be developed
properly in existing churches. There were divisions in almost all of
the congregations where the Crossroads-trained ministers
p8
introduced this approach. Furthermore, these ministers found it
difficult to keep new converts faithful in congregations where many
of the members did not appear (to these ministers) to be totally
committed, really spiritual, or seriously involved in evangelism.
McKean decided that he would not train workers and send them into
existing congregations the way Chuck Lucas had done at Crossroads.
Instead, he decided to concentrate on planting new churches.
The story of the new churches planted by the Boston Church of Christ
is even more dramatic than the story of rapid growth in Boston. In
June of 1982, they planted a new congregation in Chicago. By the end
of 1986, that congregation had baptized 567 people. In July of 1982,
the Boston church started a new congregation in London. By the end of
1986, that church had baptized 627 people. In June of 1983, the
Boston church sent a team to plant a new church in New York. By the
end of 1986, that church had baptized 649 people. The Providence,
Rhode Island, House Church of the Boston congregation became a
separate congregation in June of 1985. By the end of 1986, they had
baptized 83 people. In August of 1985, the congregation in Boston
sent a team to begin a new church in Toronto, Canada. By the end of
1986, they had baptized 159 people. In 1986, the Boston church
planted four new congregations. In June they sent a team to
Johannesburg. By the end of that year they had baptized 33 people. In
August they sent a team to Paris. By the end of the year they had
baptized 10 people. In October they sent teams to Stockholm and
Bombay. By the end of the year, the Stockholm church had baptized
nine and the Bombay church had baptized two.
This is a total, counting the baptisms in the Boston church, of 5,509
baptisms in just seven-and-one-half years. The figures by the end of
1987 will be even more impressive. No other congregation among
churches of
p9
Christ today has a record that comes close to this. Indeed, one would
be hard pressed to find a similar record of growth from such a small
beginning in such a short time in any religious group anywhere in the
world today. This amazing record of growth should not be
minimized.
An even more amazing chapter is being added to this story. Several of
the churches started by the Boston Church of Christ have already
started new mission works on their own and many more are planned for
the near future. Now other discipling churches that grew out of the
work at Crossroads have started following the example of the Boston
church. Instead of training workers and sending them into existing
congregations, they are planting new churches. In the last section of
this book, Gene Vinzant identifies all these discipling churches that
have been started or that are now being planned.
Other churches of Christ view the amazing growth of the discipling
churches with mixed emotions. They rejoice because of the number of
people being baptized. They are pleased to see the emphasis on
mission work. They are concerned, however, because of the previous
divisions and the problems they have seen in the discipling movement.
They fear that the rapid expansion of this movement will mean the
spread of these problems throughout the world.
There are several reasons for the concern which other churches of
Christ feel in regard to the rapid growth of the discipling movement.
They fear that the people they are seeking to reach with the gospel
may be confused by the presence of two different churches of Christ
that are similar in some ways, yet quite different in other ways.
They fear that the people they are seeking to reach may react
negatively to the methods of the discipling
p10
churches and that this negative reaction may close the door to
evangelism by all churches of Christ. They also fear that when
discipling churches are started in areas where other churches of
Christ already exist, the new discipling churches may recruit members
from the existing congregations. Their main concern, however, comes
from their belief that the discipling churches are teaching and
practicing things that they should not be teaching and practicing.
They fear that the doctrines and practices of the discipling churches
are damaging people psychologically and spiritually.
The gap that separates discipling churches from other churches of
Christ has recently grown much wider. An ecclesiastical hierarchy is
developing among the discipling churches. Other congregations that
grew out of the work of the Crossroads church are being taken over by
the Boston church. This takeover is not just an informal matter of
influence, although that is the way Al Baird and Steve Johnson
represented it at a forum at Freed-Hardeman College on October 10,
1987.4 They said that the argument was just about words. Other
churches of Christ, however, do not just object to the words used to
describe this takeover process. What they object to is what the
discipling churches admit they are doing.
In this new system that is emerging, there is a new organizational
structure in which one congregation officially assumes the oversight
of another congregation. The evangelists and elders in one
congregation control, direct, and exercise authority over other
congregations. This hierarchy extends through
p11
several levels so that the Boston church has direct or indirect
control over a large network of congregations throughout the world.
The plan is for the Boston church to exercise direct control over
several key congregations known as "pillar churches" with the pillar
churches controlling "capitol city churches," the capitol city
churches controlling "small city churches," and the small city
churches controlling "countryside churches."5
The pillar churches in the United States have been identified and
boundaries have been drawn for their "spheres of influence." Seven
such pillar churches in the United States have been identified thus
far. These are the discipling congregations in Atlanta, Chicago,
Denver, New York, Providence, San Diego, and San Francisco. In
addition, 17 pillar churches outside the United States have been
assigned various foreign spheres of influence. The Boston Church of
Christ is not listed as a pillar church. It is at the top of the
pyramid, directing the 24 pillar churches.6
This new ecclesiastical hierarchy is a clear departure from the
doctrine of congregational autonomy taught by churches of Christ
since the early days of the Restoration Movement. That is not really
being denied. What is being denied is the validity of the
congregational autonomy doctrine as it has been taught and understood
among churches of Christ.
The doctrine of congregational autonomy is based on the New Testament
pattern. That pattern includes independent local congregations. It
does not authorize any level of church organization above that of the
local congregation. It does not authorize one congregation to
exercise authority over another congregation. The departure from this
pattern and the development of an ecclesiastical hierarchy was one of
the major factors in the apostasy that turned the church of the first
century into the Roman Catholic Church by the sixth century.
The doctrine of congregational autonomy has been
p12
very important in the history of the Restoration Movement. Churches
of Christ and Christian Churches divided in the late 1800s. One of
the issues involved in that division was a Missionary Society that
functioned as a level of church organization above the level of the
local congregations. In the early 1900s, there was a division between
the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) and a more conservative
and independent Christian Church. There were many issues relating to
theological liberalism that led to that division. The final break, in
the 195Os, came over a "restructure" plan that shifted control from
the local congregations to a central denominational organization.
Churches of Christ cooperate with one another, but the typical
practice is to exercise great care to avoid any appearance of
anything that would violate the autonomy of a local congregation.
When a congregation sends out a missionary to start a new
congregation, for example, the supporting congregation has oversight
of his work, but they do not claim to have oversight of the
congregation established by that missionary. They might offer advice
to a new mission congregation if asked to do so, but they would never
exercise authority over that congregation. They would never attempt
to direct or control that church. They would regard any such action
as a violation of congregational autonomy. The recent development of
an ecclesiastical hierarchy among the discipling churches is a clear
break with their roots in the heritage of the Restoration Movement.
What they are doing now is a clear violation of congregational
autonomy.
In November of 1986, the Boston Church of Christ had this statement
in its bulletin: "We are excited to announce that the Elders of the
Boston congregation have assumed oversight of the Kingston Church of
Christ, a two-year-old mission effort originally planted by the
Miami-Gables congregation."7 In a pattern that
p13
was soon to be repeated throughout the United States, the preacher
for the Kingston congregation was taken to Boston for further
training and the Boston church sent in its own preacher.
One week later the Boston Church of Christ announced another
takeover. In 1985, the Crossroads church had targeted Vienna,
Austria, for a new church planting. The sponsorship of this mission
effort was shifted from Crossroads to Boston and the leader of that
mission team was moved to Boston for further training.8
On April 29, 1987, the Gateway Church of Christ in St. Louis was
taken under the Boston umbrella. The Shandon Church of Christ in
Columbia, South Carolina, started that congregation almost one year
earlier. After the takeover, one of the preachers went to Boston and
the other to Chicago for further training. The Chicago Church of
Christ, one of the pillar churches directed by the Boston church,
assumed oversight of the St. Louis congregation. They sent in their
own preachers to direct the work. They changed the name of the
congregation to the "St. Louis Church of Christ." They described this
as a "replanting" of the work in that city. Ever since then they have
referred to the date of the replanting as the beginning of the work
in St. Louis.9
In July of 1987, the Boston church announced a takeover attempt that
was not completely successful. Kip McKean said,
At the invitation of Sam Laing and the other evangelists of the
Atlanta Highlands congregation, the Elders, the Lindos and I sought
to inspire an evangelistic revival in the congregation. However, due
to opposition from within the congregation to such Biblical
principles as the authority of the evangelist, one-on-one
discipleship and the calling of every member to evangelism, the
Elders and I were asked by these same evangelists to consider
planting a new congregation.
p14
where the before-mentioned principles would be
taught and practiced.10
What happened in Atlanta, according to personal correspondence and
telephone conversations with those involved, is that some of the
members of the Atlanta Highlands congregation refused to accept the
claim that the Boston Church of Christ should have authority over the
Atlanta Highlands congregation. This case followed the same pattern
seen earlier. Sam Laing moved to Boston for further training. The
Boston church sent in its own team, including an evangelist and 15
full-time interns. The Boston church assumed the oversight of the
"remnant" which formed this new congregation. Those who wanted to be
a part of the new congregation were interviewed to see if they would
be acceptable.
Kip McKean said concerning the new congregation, "My vision for the
Atlanta congregation is to become the pillar church for the entire
Southeastern United States."11 He then went on to list nine cities
where this pillar church would plant new congregations. The pillar
church status of the new Atlanta congregation raises the question
about the status of the older Crossroads-type congregations in the
Southeast. McKean listed eight such churches and said that the Boston
church planned to help these congregations while training the Atlanta
church so that it would be "more than capable of meeting all their
needs."12
The next month, the bulletin of the Boston church included a report
of another takeover, this one in Berkeley, California. In June, the
preacher who started that church--Tom Brown--went to Boston for
further training and decided to stay in Boston until he could plant a
new discipling church in Los Angeles. The Boston church sent a
preacher to initiate what was called the "rebuilding" of the Berkeley
congregation. In
p15
August, the Boston church officially began directing the church in
Berkeley. On August 2, Tom Brown, Al Baird, and Kip McKean outlined
for the congregation the plans for the "reconstruction." Notice that
all three of these men were members of the Boston church--not the
Berkeley church. There were three elements in the reconstruction plan
the Boston church imposed on the Berkeley church.
First, they had to move from Berkeley to downtown San Francisco and
become "The San Francisco Church of Christ." Second, all their
evangelists and women's counselors had to resign and become interns.
McKean explained that this was required so that "when they are
appointed in the future, they will be recognized in Boston as well as
in our church plantings, such as in Bombay or New York."13 He went on
to say, "I foresee this to help form a uniform standard of
recognition throughout the multiplying ministries."14 The third
requirement in this reconstruction is that "every individual who
desires to be a member of the new San Francisco congregation will
need to count the cost of being a disciple."15 If this requirement
means what it did in Atlanta, the members will have to be interviewed
to see if they will be acceptable.
Another takeover was announced recently in the bulletin of the
Mission Church of Christ in San Diego. They said that they had agreed
to follow the Boston church "with a true disciple's heart." As
insiders in the discipling movement know, that language means total
submission without question. Once the Mission church submitted to
Boston, they were recognized as a pillar church and given oversight
over California, Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas. One of the
congregations that now reports to the Mission church is the East
Valley congregation in Phoenix. I recently interviewed a preacher who
had been invited to move to Phoenix as an "elder intern." He declined
the offer when he
p16
learned that the East Valley congregation is directed by the Mission
church in San Diego and that they are directed by the Boston
church.
A similar situation now exists with the Denver Church of Christ--a
discipling church started recently by the Crossroads congregation.
The Denver church has now joined the Boston hierarchy as a pillar
church. The Boulder church has been told that it must merge with the
Denver church. Other discipling churches in that area are expected to
work under the oversight of the Denver church.
There was a very revealing statement in the Boston bulletin in a note
at the end of a two-page spread listing all the church plantings that
have taken place and that are planned by the Boston church and by
other discipling churches:
As discussed at the Leadership Meeting at the 1986 Boston World
Missions Seminar, here are the mutually agreed upon guidelines for
targeting a city:
The third and fourth rules are incompatible unless one understands
that two different kinds of churches are being discussed. The third
rule means that the discipling churches have to let other churches of
Christ know that they are going to plant a new church in their city.
That is all. No cooperation is contemplated. They can move in next
door to a congregation not identified with the discipling movement
and all they have to do is to notify them of their plans. The fourth
rule, however, is talking about discipling churches only. In that
case,
p17
they cannot even send a mission team into the same nation where
another discipling church has already been planted--at least not
without their permission.
This statement clearly shows that in the thinking of those who lead
the discipling movement, discipling churches now constitute a totally
separate fellowship from the fellowship of other churches of Christ.
This attitude is reflected even more clearly in their frequent use of
the term "remnant" to describe themselves. They see themselves as a
remnant sent by God to call the faithful out of the "mainline"
churches. Still more recent developments suggest that the circle is
being drawn even tighter. The older discipling churches started as a
result of the work at Crossroads are being excluded if they refuse to
join the ecclesiastical hierarchy headed by the Boston church.
Some of the leaders of the original discipling movement that came
from the Crossroads congregation are now resisting the takeover
attempts by the Boston church. John C. Whitehead of the Crossroads
church recently wrote a booklet, "Stop, Look, Listen," in which he
warns against the Boston takeover effort. The Miami-Gables
congregation has been resisting the Boston takeover attempts. Now,
the Boston church plans to start a new congregation in Miami.16 What
is happening now however, is the only logical extension of what was
taught at a different level earlier throughout the discipling
movement. If every Christian must be discipled in a hierarchical
discipling system within a local congregation, why not insist that
every congregation must be discipled in a hierarchical discipling
p18
system that puts one congregation in a position of authority over
another? There is as little Bible authority for one of these ideas as
for the other.
Now, however, the Boston church has started teaching a doctrine of
authority that goes far beyond what was taught earlier in the
discipling movement. They are teaching that Hebrews 13:17 applies to
matters of opinion. They are claiming that this verse gives authority
in matters of opinion to evangelists and elders, zone leaders, house
church leaders, Bible Talk leaders, and disciplers. Al Baird told
members of the Atlanta Highlands congregation that it would be a sin
to refuse to obey the instructions of a discipler--even in a matter
of opinion with no biblical justification at all because of the claim
that God has placed that discipler over that Christian. Some
observers believe that this is what was being practiced all along in
the discipling movement, but they did not admit it or try to defend
it until recently. What is happening now, however, is that discipling
with its requirement of imitation and unconditional submission is
being extended to congregations. The Boston church is discipling its
pillar churches. They are discipling other churches. Eventually this
Boston-led hierarchy is supposed to extend throughout the world.
In writing this material, I have had to point out some very
serious problems with the discipling approach. That may make some
people think that I regard the discipling churches as being totally
wrong and other churches of Christ as being perfect. This is not what
I believe. I see much good in the discipling churches. I also see
many failures among other churches of Christ. But when I discuss the
good things I see in the discipling churches and the failures among
other churches of Christ, some may think that I totally
p19
endorse everything about the discipling movement. This is not at all
what I intend to communicate.
These dilemmas, however, simply involve the discussion of the issue,
not the issue itself. The discipling dilemma is far more serious. It
involves the question of how we can help others become more and more
like Jesus Christ without making them over in our own image and thus
changing them in ways that have nothing at all to do with
Christianity.
A central element in the debate over the discipling movement as it
has appeared in various denominations throughout the world has been
the charge that this movement involves a control that is foreign to
the spirit of Christianity. Critics of this movement charge that its
leaders are making members over after their own image. According to
these critics, members are controlled in such a way that their
personalities are changed to conform to the group norm. These
critics argue that such personality changes are destructive
psychologically and spiritually.
The discipling dilemma offers two equally unacceptable alternatives.
One extreme is to insist on changing people at all costs--even at the
cost of their person-hood, autonomy, and uniqueness. The opposite
extreme is to avoid such unhealthy changes by not helping people
change at all. The way to escape from this dilemma is to recognize
that there is a third alternative. We can help people change in ways
that are uniquely
christian, but avoid making them over after our own equally
unacceptable alternatives. One is to accept the discipling approach
totally in spite of some very serious
p20
problems. The other is to reject everything about this approach in
spite of its many strong points.
After years of careful observation, I have come to the conclusion
that the discipling churches are right in many of the things they do.
They emphasize evangelism and get virtually all of their members
involved in evangelism at some level. They have a very effective
small group approach to evangelism. They are careful to make sure
that prospective converts are thoroughly taught before they baptize
them. They place a great emphasis on mission work and send some of
their best people to the mission fields. They are conservative in
doctrine. They spend most of their money to support the preaching of
the gospel and little on paying for a church building. They are
active in confronting sin in the lives of their members. They get
their members into personal relationships that could encourage
spiritual growth if used properly. They are baptizing a large number
of people. They have a low drop-out rate. These strong points are
important and they must not be ignored. By way of contrast, years of
careful observation have forced me to the conclusion that many other
churches of Christ are failing in these very areas where the
discipling churches are succeeding.
There is, however, a very serious problem in the discipling churches
that is not generally found in other churches of Christ. The next
chapter presents the results of some research conducted in the Boston
Church of Christ. A psychological test was administered to over 900
members of that congregation. Results of that study provide
convincing evidence of an unhealthy pressure toward conformity in the
Boston Church of Christ. It is changing the personalities of its
members in unhealthy ways. Later in this book, you will find several
follow-up studies done after the original research in Boston. Results
of these studies provide compelling proof that the personality
changes are being
p21
produced by the discipling methods employed by that church. Various
comparison group studies show that these personality changes are not
generally found in other churches of Christ or in various mainline
denominations--but the very same pattern of personality change is
observed in studies of various sects that are highly
manipulative.
Discipling churches have some very serious problems in spite of the
fact that they are doing a lot that is right. Other churches of
Christ do not typically have the same problems, but there are many
ways in which they are failing to do what they ought to do. Churches
of Christ would face a terrible dilemma if these were the only two
options. Fortunately, each congregation of the churches of Christ is
independent. All members are expected to study the Bible for
themselves and reach their own conclusions regarding matters of faith
and doctrine. No individual member and no local congregation has to
choose sides and accept one or the other of these two equally
undesirable alternatives. There is a third alternative. Churches of
Christ can correct all their many failings, do everything good that
the discipling churches are doing, but avoid the errors that are
producing the psychological manipulation.
1. Bernard Quinn and others, editors, Churches and Church
Membership in the United States 1980 (Atlanta: Glenmary Research
Center, 1982).
2. Robert Nelson, Understanding the Crossroads Controversy
(Gainesville, Florida: published by the author, 1981).
p22
3. Milton Jones, Discipling: The Multiplying Ministry (Fort
Worth: Star Bible & Tract Corp., 1982). Note: while this book
seems to be the origin of the term "multiplying churches," the author
has an independent ministry not identified with Crossroads, Boston,
or any other discipling congregation.
4. Al Baird, Winford Claiborne, Earl Edwards, and Steve Johnson,
"Discipling, Church Growth, and Church Unity," The Third Annual
Preachers and Church Workers Forum, Freed-Hardeman College,
Henderson, Tennessee, October 10, 1987. Audio Tape.
5.Bulletin, Boston Church of Christ, January 4, 1987.
6.Bulletin, Boston Church of Christ, August 30, 1987.
7.Bulletin, Boston Church of Christ, November 23, 1986.
8.Bulletin, Boston Church of Christ, November 30, 1986.
9.Bulletin, Chicago Church of Christ, May 3 and July 19, 1987.
10.Bulletin, Boston Church of Christ, July 26, 1987.
11.Ibid.
12.Ibid.
13.Ibid.
14.Ibid.
15.Ibid.
16..Bulletin, Boston Church of Christ, January 4, 1987
17..Bulletin, Boston Church of Christ, August 30, 1987.
END OF CHAPTER 1
Link to Chapter 2