JAC Online

Intentional Discipleship Communities:
An effective way of formation and mission
by Jonathan Evans

“What do you want to be when you grow up?” A common and seemingly innocent question posed to a child but loaded with expectations and largely focussed on individual achievement in status and economic standing. This question frames contemporary educational efforts and programming that reinforces the fragmentation of the individual, focussing primarily on employable skills. Education becomes an incubator of narcissism by focussing on employable skill acquisition and grades while ignoring holistic values for personal development (or by holistic improvement in isolation with self-help books and trips to the gym.) Indeed, even religion has become individualised in the context of a pluralistic and secular culture. Robert Bellah writes about the trend towards individualisation in religion, “I believe the more dangerous threat today comes from the second alternative – the complete privatization of religion, so that religion becomes entirely personal with no collective expression at all. Indeed, in a significant sector of our population (which is not necessarily “secularized”) that has already happened.[1]” Creating disciples by nourishing individuals can take place without the entrapment of individualisation. Soon-Cha Rah states:

“Individuation does not need to occur at the expense of an appreciation of a corporate point of view. Excessive and hyper-individualism contrasts to the healthy process of individuation by enslaving the individual to the tyranny of individualism, leading to personalism and privatism… that reflect the narcissism of American culture rather than the redemptive power of the gospel message.”[2]

The proper context for creating disciples free from counter-gospel living involves the intentional cultivation of community. As community is an ambiguous term, it is important it is defined. Scott Peck describes a community as a “group of individuals who have learned how to communicate honestly with each other, whose relationships go deeper than their masks of composure, and who have developed some significant commitment to ‘rejoice together, mourn together,’ and to ‘delight in each other, make others’ condition our own.[3]’” Larry Crabb goes further calling for a certain type of community, “The greatest need in modern civilization is the development of communities – true communities where the heart of God is home, where the humble and wise learn to shepherd those on the path behind them, where trusting strugglers lock arms with others as together they journey on.[4]” This picture of growing and learning together embodies the gospel and reflects an educational model after God’s design. Communities that can be described as gospel-centred are distinguished from secular ones by Jean Vanier, founder of L’Arche, “Community is a place of forgiveness.[5]” Such a gospel-centred community would show the fruit of working together in the journey of Christ-likeness. Pachomius, the noted founder of cenobitic monasticism is described to have learned more about his need for patience from his fellow brother, John, than his years modelling the desert fathers in isolation[6]. Indeed, the community itself can be more educating and transformative than the organized practices of an institution. The community based model of theological education and spiritual formation resembles more closely the intention of God for people to live and grow in community. This truth will be seen by surveying the theology of community, historical trajectory of community discipleship and the ecology of development proposed by Urie Bronfenbrenner.

There are, of course, theological reasons for an educational model that consists of intentional Christian community. Eberhard Arnold observes: “Life in community is no less than a necessity for us – it is an inescapable “must” that determines everything we do and think. Yet it is not our good intentions or efforts that have been decisive in our choosing this way of life. Rather, we have been overwhelmed by a certainty – a certainty that has its origin and power in the Source of everything that exists. We acknowledge God as this Source.[7]” The Divine community, The Trinity, is an eschatological model of such existence (Matt 18:20)[8]. Miroslav Volf points out that Christology leads to an individual kingship but does not create like Trinitarian Theology, an ecclesial salvific community itself[9]. The Trinitarian community is characterised by “unity in multiplicity,”[10] independence and interdependence[11], complementary personal and relational persons,[12] mutually internal while catholicity[13] and reciprocity[14]. A Trinitarian foundation of community leads to an external trajectory, evidenced in the Son sent to reform a new community between God and humanity. In his book Created for Community Stanley Grenz offers a viewpoint of salvation that moves beyond individualism and into an invitation from Jesus, the sent one, to participate in Divine Community: “God wants to save us from sin so that he can bring creation to a higher purpose. God wants us to participate in an eternal community. God’s desire is to create a redeemed humankind, dwelling within a redeemed creation, and enjoying the presence of the Triune God.” Such a community rightfully holds an imago Dei[15], a corporate reality rather than a “human-spirit-after-the Holy-Spirit-in-me theology.[16]” Therefore Trinitarian theology results in educational models not where “the regenerate sit together with Christ Jesus in heavenly places[17]” but in a salvific community which is sent out into the world with a gospel invitation.

Jesus and his twelve disciples model a diverse community fulfilling the tradition God established with Israel to be a light to the nations. Jean Vanier describes Jesus’ school: “When he created the first community of the apostles, Jesus chose to live with men who were very different from on another.[18]” The prerequisite of such a community is Jesus’ calling to follow him. Peter Holmes explores Jesus’ community as a new family:

“what has always been known is that He (Jesus) valued Yahwistic tradition and desired to birth a new type of family which He called Kingdom, emphasising new covenant relationships focused around Him. He also saw many obstacles set against this Kingdom’s success (Mark 4:26ff.; 10:14, 24ff.; 12:32ff., etc.). He therefore needed to equip His followers with a unique new outlook, echoing a Rapha or Yahwistic perspective, that would give them the spiritual and intellectual capital to hold steady in the battles that lay ahead. Just as in Exodus 15, Jesus’ disciples were told to ‘listen to Him’ (Luke 9:35). Their wholeness, like that of the Hebrew community, was to be found in relationship with Him and one another… Christ lived the recovery of Theocentric community, though not focused around Yahweh, but Himself.[19]”

This Kingdom family is typologically a new school established by new traditions, information, spirituality and fellowship. However, it is not these means that create but The Holy Spirit reforming community as a visible expression of the peace that has been made in Christ. The result is a shared life with a high level of participation (Rom 15:14, 1 Cor 14:31, Eph 4:15, Col 3:16), a shared freedom[20] in a focussed and simple life.[21] This focussed simplicity is culminated in the person and mission of Jesus, the divine representative. The simplicity of life is not a lackadaisical or monotonous one, but built on replicating life in Jesus’ Kingdom. Ultimately, Jesus formed a community that brought life: “he healed sick bodies, resurrected the dead, drove out demons from tormented souls, and carried his message of joy to the poorest of the poor. Jesus’ message means the realization of the future invisible kingdom now; it is the promise that ultimately the earth will be won wholly for God.[22]” Jesus’ means are explained as unconventional in first century Palestine in the classic, The Master Plan of Evangelism, “The natural informality of this teaching method of Jesus stood in striking contrast to the formal, almost scholastic procedures of the scribes… Jesus asked only that His disciples follow Him. Knowledge was not communicated by the Master in terms of laws and dogmas, but in the living personality of One who walked among them.[23]” Indeed, today a community formed around Jesus’ life and teachings are alternative to educational models valuing distanced professional relationships and objective assessment of individual work.

The first century church established by the apostles continued the family model of education in homes. Pohl observes that, “households remain the most important location for hospitality in the New Testament period. Fellowship and growth in the earliest churches depended on household-based hospitality among believers[24].” By the Spirit the church has continued to express itself in intimate communal expressions. Arnold gives a brief historical sampling of Christian communities,

“we stand as brothers and sisters with all those who have joined together to live in community through the long course of history. They appeared among the Christians of the first century; in the prophetic movement of the Montanists in the second; in the monasticism of the following centuries; in the revolutionary movement of justice and love led by Arnold of Brescia; in the Waldensian movement; in the itinerant communities of Francis of Assisi; among the Bohemian and Moravian Brethren and the Brothers of the common Life; among the Beguines and Beghard; in the Anabaptist movements of the sixteenth century; among the early Quakers; among the Labadists of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries; among the early Moravians, and in many other denominations and movements down to our present day.[25]”

Indeed, throughout the Christian church intentional communities have existed both in renewal while preserving sacred texts, cultivating minds and mobilizing the wider church in its mission.

In modernity alternative bodies have continued to challenge and intensify spiritual training. Broadly speaking, there are two camps that emerged in the 1960s regarding theological training in the Western world following rapid social changes[26]. The two camps consisted of those who emphasized academic preparation for ministry and those who stressed practical training. The first view saw the pastor as a professional similar to a doctor or lawyer equipped with degrees and a curriculum that addressed relevancy. The practical school critiqued the relevancy of seminary curriculum to meet the demands of a modern and urban world and founded many “action training” centres[27]. The critique deemed that seminaries were unconcerned about secular involvement, interested in teaching and scholarship and that theology was taught abstractly[28]. Action training was founded upon a challenge to traditional education but soon lead to renewal and cooperation and eventual death with an obvious impact on theological training. Another educational reform movement of the 1960s emerged within the Evangelical Presbyterian seminary of Guatemala’s theological education by extension (TEE) project. Pastors were trained on the job alongside missionaries. This system spread rapidly to meet the demand of leadership for the growing church. The obvious strength of such training was the development of indigenous leaders within their community. Bible Institutes, too, raised the educational capacity to develop leaders within the church. Most famously exemplified by Dwight L. Moody, Bible institutes were founded to complement seminaries while focussing on “a concern for the city, a vision to equip lay persons, and a commitment to practical application of training.[29]” Consequently many congregations and denominations developed this model finding success training urban ethnic populations. At this time, “many larger, established, old-line churches were experiencing rapid membership losses in urban congregations, the vitality of the church was quietly shifting to independent, Pentecostal, Charismatic, and Evangelical churches.” The predominant opinion was that seminaries and universities were “out of touch.[30]” Finally emerging from the critique of university and seminary education is the model of community organizing. This movement began in the 1930’s by Saul Alinsky, the founder of the Industrial Areas Foundation with a concern for social transformation and unity. Community organizing has involved the Catholic Church and mainline Protestant churches while more theologically conservative church communities have remained absent. Indeed, The Catholic Workers, The Iona Community, L’Arche and Sojourners all are examples of such communities typified by faith as much as social action[31]. Jackson notes it is encouraging that higher education has begun to include community organizing and development as part of their curricula[32]. From the brief survey of modern alternatives to education, the community model emerges as a theme strong in its empowerment of marginal populations, perceived relevancy and social transformation.

Having pointed out the theological and biblical examples of Christian community as an ideal form of discipleship, followed by a brief historical survey, this paper will discuss the practical ecology of discipleship. Urie Bronfenbrenner proposed a model of human development in his book The Ecology of Human Development: Experiments by Nature and Design based on the ecological systems in which one exists. This nested model, like that of Russian dolls, begins internally at the microsystem, being the immediate relationship of the person with the educational community. It ends externally at the macrosystem, involving the person as part of the community in more broad patterns of culture such as economy, customs and bodies of knowledge[33]. Theology will be overlaid on Bronfenbrenner’s ecological systems theory to show the power of the gospel in such a community is transformative in students’ lives and the environments where such communities exist. Consequently, this will show that the community-based discipleship model has integrity in discipleship as a more holistic means of formation and communicating the gospel.

Bronfenbrenner defines the microsystem as “the pattern of activities, social roles and interpersonal relations experienced by the developing person in a given face-to-face setting with particular physical, social and symbolic features that invite, permit or inhibit engagement in sustained progressively more complex interaction with, and activity in, the immediate environment.”[34] The microsystem is much more complex than the student and the curriculum which may often be the matter of discussion, including the content and structure. Spiritual Formation or “Christlikeness” encompasses the whole person in her whole context. The first context to be encouraged is a relationship with God. The Greek word for discipleship, mathetes, implies a subject or apprentice in relationship with the master.[35] Holmes points out that Hebrew Spirituality did not consist of a material-spiritual dualism but incorporated the physical and metaphysical as two sides of the same coin.[36] He quotes Rahner as describing the body of a person as “solid spirit.” Therefore, attention in such a community that is previously described as gospel-centred will factor in its curriculum daily rhythms of prayer, study, work and rest much like that in the rule of Benedict. The Benedictine rule is described by Ciardi as a synthesis of eremitic ideals such as ascesis, solitude, and prayer in the quest of knowing God and communal oneness in Christ[37]. Unity is achieved with an intentional spirituality and social structure considering of the role of students, faculty and other community members. Vanier writes about the dynamics of those forming community:

“Tensions in community often come from the fact that individuals have not talked about their expectations. They quickly discover that each of them wants something very different. I imagine that the same thing can happen in marriage. It is not simply a question of wanting to live together. If the marriage is to last you have to know what you want to do and to be together. This means that every community must have a Charter which specifies clearly why its members are living together and what is expected of each of them. It also means that before a community begins, its members should take time to prepare for living together and clarify their aims.[38]”

The Microsystem of community discipleship resembles monasticism by embracing all parts of life such as relationships, rhythms and instruction. The intentionality of discipleship within the community encourages growth in Christlikeness as a chartered aim while discouraging life decisions that are out of line with following Christ[39]. In addition to being intentional, this of course must also be Spirit empowered and centred on God as Trinity, the model for intentional and interdependent community.

Mesosystems are the next and larger area containing the Microsystem. Mesosystems comprise the linkages and processes taking place between two or more Microsystems[40]. For instance a student’s school will be affected by its relation with family and the workplace. In an intentional discipleship community the accommodations, interactions and relations of the student are more focussed and intense as work, school and social interactions are part of the same charter. Rod Wilson comments, “The depth of relationships and extent of the mission are clearly enhanced by physical proximity. It is one thing to nurture a fellow pilgrim in a church context, but quite another to live with that person on a daily basis. Since both have left one sphere of living and come together to be in a new body, there is the commencement of a new community that functions within different parameters.[41]” Thus, intentionality in this regard can greatly benefit spiritual formation. The physical setting chosen that considers the gospel should be conducive to studying theology[42] while also facilitating a missional component. Jim Wallis founder of the sojourners states, “The oldest and best traditions of the church demand that the gospel be proclaimed and lived in the midst of the suffering world, and that those who would follow Jesus Christ be particularly sensitive to the poor and the oppressed. A commitment to social justice is simply a consequence of faith in Jesus Christ.[43]” Again the link between spirituality and physicality is accentuated. Padgit comments on spiritual formation through physicality as an integrated, whole Kingdom life of physical spirituality:

“Jesus shared meals with his friends. He walked the dirt roads with them. He healed them with the touch of his hands. He used his spit to restore sight to a blind man. He washed the grime from the feet of his disciples. These moments of physicality are not incidental to our understanding of who Jesus was and is – they give us permission to trust that God really is present in the mundane physical acts of our own lives.[44]”

Indeed, the physical ordinary parts of life and community and the sudden interruptions of those in need are important teaching moments and demonstrations of the Kingdom of God. Often schools are situated in a predominant academic environment and focus that limits these types of interactions with other realms of development. An integrated model of community and teaching is being employed as this paper is written by Dave Diewert as he teaches “Solidarity, resistance Liberation: The Way of God in the World” in Vancouver’s downtown Eastside. Paying attention to contexts where theory integrates with action provides a both/and solution to the previously mentioned debate between seminaries and action orientated theological education. Factoring in the Mesosytem relationship between spiritual formation and the school community shows that families, neighbourhoods, and workplaces are a component of theological education and can be harnessed and maximised for learning opportunities.

Bronfenbrenner describes another realm of relationships between different physical settings termed Exosystems. “The exosystem comprises the linkages and processes taking place between two or more settings, at least one of which does not contain the developing person, but in which events occur that indirectly influence processes within the immediate setting in which the developing person lives.[45]” Two obvious contexts are in a relationship with an intentional discipleship community: the spiritual realms and the larger, parish church. Derived from the Hebrew model of holistic spirituality, the apostle Paul suggests that earth is the first heaven where human spiritual beings exist in relationship with a second heaven comprising an unseen realm where spiritual beings interplay and the third heaven where Yahweh is enthroned[46] (2 Cor12:3). Communities that address the revealed spiritual realities from the Scriptures allow members to acknowledge they are spiritual beings within a spiritual reality and help bridge the difficulties in relating to Trinity and other earthly phenomenon seemingly under control of “the powers” (Eph 6:12). Therefore, discipleship will factor in spiritual warfare and be faithful in prayer as Paul instructs, “Pray in the Spirit at all times in every prayer and supplication. To that end keep alert and always persevere in supplication for all the saints.” (Eph 6:18). Praying to God connects believers with one another and initiates the second exosystem relating to the community and the rest of the church. Discipleship communities have had an often-strained relationship with the established church while being a positive expression of renewal[47]. However, the interrelatedness described by Volf is apparent in the universality of church while recognizing each communities’ catholicity[48]. Rod Wilson shows in his book Counselling and Community that all the answers are not within a community and in particular may need the expertise of an outsider, specifically those in the counselling profession. Therefore, the discipleship community initiating in prayer will find itself seeking healthy reciprocal relationships with the institutional church with invitations and requests. Through this interaction discipleship is accentuated allowing students to discover a larger expression of the church, witness God’s particular calling to community and be subject to expertise not contained inside a community.

Finally, the student in a discipleship community will be involved in a Macrosystem defined as the “overarching pattern of micro-, meso-, and exosystems characteristic of a given culture or subculture, with particular reference to the belief systems, bodies of knowledge, material resources etc.[49]” Therefore, a community by its charter and curriculum must be aware of assumptions of its culture and theology and thereby teach and live counterculturally where these values are in opposition to the Scriptures. A community which engages with culture and lives prophetically while expressing relevancy will prepare students for living in the world while communicating the gospel as an alternative way to live. Indeed, the formation of an intentional discipleship community itself is prophetic in response to the theology and anthropology of Western individualization.[50] Moreover, a Christian community can be prophetic towards the “church in captivity.[51]”

An Intentional Discipleship Community responds to the culture in which the church finds itself in the 21^st century while providing an outlet for those wanting to grow up to be like Christ by living together. Rather than a replication of the individualization that is fostered today, a community focussed on spiritual formation is fuelled by and resembles The Trinity. This kind of community is not a new idea but follows a long line of historical examples and modern responses to theological education. Lastly, discipleship communities provide an intensification of development by structuring a holistic environment regarding the ecological systems from the micro to macrosystems and being an effective communication of the gospel by being a community within many communities.

Bibliography

Arnold, Eberhard. Why We Live in Community. Farmington: Plough Publishing, 1995.

Bella, Robert N. “Conclusion: Competing Visions of the Role of Religion in American Society,” in Uncivil Religion: Interreligious Hostility in America, ed. Robert N. Bellah and F. E. Greenspan New York: Crossroad, 1987.

Brofenbrenner, Urie. The Ecology of Human Development: Experiments by Nature and Design. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press, 1979.

 Brofenbrenner, Urie. “Ecological Models of Human Development” In International Encyclopaedia of Education, Vol. 3, 2^nd ed. Oxford: Elsevier (1994):1643 - 1647.

Ciaridi, Fabio. Konoinia: Spiritual and Theological Growth of the Religious Community. Quezon City: Claretian Publications, 1999.

Coleman, Robert E. The Master Plan of Evangelism. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1964.

Crabb, Lawrence J. Connecting: Healing For Ourselves and Our Relationships. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2005.

Davidson, Kim. “Demystifying Bible Institutes” In Educating Urban Christians in the 21^st Century: A Needs Assessment for Boston. Boston: Emmanuel Gospel Center for the Boston Education Collaborative, 1998.

Holmes, Peter R. Becoming More Human: Exploring the Interface of Spirituality, Discipleship and Therapeutic Faith Community. Waynesboro, GA: Paternoster Press, 2005.

Jackson, Bruce W. “How Did We Get Here? A survey of Important Historical, Social, and Theological issues That Occasioned the Rise of Urban Theological Education” In Transforming The City: Reframing Education for Urban Ministry. edited by Eldin Villafane, Bruce W. Jackson, Robert A. Evans and Alice Frazer Evans Grand Rapids: William Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2002.

Needham, Phil. Community in Mission: A Salvationist Ecclesiology. London: The Salvation Army, 1987.

Padgitt, Doug. Church Re-imagined: The Spiritual Formation of People in Communities of Faith. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2005.

Peck, M. Scott. The Different drum: Community-Making and Peace. New York: Touchstone, 1987.

Pohl, Christine D. Making Room: Recovering Hospitality as a Christian Tradition. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing, 1999.

Rah, Soong-Chan. The Next Evangelicalism: Freeing the Church from Western Cultural Captivity. Downers Grove: Intervarsity Press, 2009.

Rausch, Thomas P. Radical Christian Communities. Collegeville: The Liturgical Press, 1990.

Rousseau, Philip. Pachomius: The Making of a Community in Fourth-Century Egypt. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1999.

Vanier, Jean. Community and Growth: Our Pilgrimage Together. Toronto: Griffin House, 1979.

Volf, Miroslav. After Our Likeness: The Church as the Image of the Trinity. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing, 1998.

Wilson, Rod J. K. Counselling and Community. Vancouver: Regent College Publishing, 2003.