Discussion Assignment Instructions

You must compose two replies of around  3 – 4 sentences apiece, which also must contain one citation each to the below student prompts. The student must only cite the course textbooks. Write from an evangelical conservative perspective.

Student 1 David

The alternative church models have both advantages and pitfalls compared to the traditional models.  At the same time, they share pitfalls with traditional models. To a certain degree, alternative models are likely to become the norm over traditional models so we must consider how to best guide their utilization.

When considering alternative models, we still must cling to the proper definition of church. As Dr. Moody wrote, we must continue to view the church as a “priesthood” composed wholly of “disciple-making disciples.”[1] Programmatic structures, whether implemented in traditional or alternative models, have throughout history tended to lead to people basing their standing in God, and even their eternal salvation, on attendance and ritual performance. It has been centuries since the Reformers first rejected the idea of grace attained through church participation rather than personal faith. Sadly, a great deal of Protestant church members still act like their spiritual growth depends on participating in church activity. Unless that activity serves to equip the members to disciple one another and introduce or build up those relationships, it is not serving a useful purpose.

The physical distancing often involved in the alternative models could complicate personal life investment. It requires greater intentionality to “be joined” together with another to be sufficiently intimate for effective “accountability.”[2] Unfortunately, most traditional models following a programmatic structure are not being intentional about this investment despite the comparative ease, in comparison to some alternative models, of forming those relationships. In actuality, it should not be excessively difficult to form and maintain these relationships even in the alternative models. It may take creativity but the barrier is more one of comfort and will than particular difficulty.  Overall, programmatic structures, unless designed for that specific purpose, do not encourage this intentionality.

Dr. Moody identified “power of example” or life “modeling” as one of the “tools” for discipling, meaning “assuming responsibility for faithfully nurturing” through sharing one’s “life and ministry” as Jesus did with His disciples.[3] If the only interaction members have is mutual participation in church programs, I do not see how this modeling could happen effectively. When those programs are occurring in the context of physically distanced alternative church models, I would expect that to be even more difficult. Whether the church is a traditional or alternative model, members still need to choose to find ways to share their lives and ministries. Perhaps traditional models are less difficult than alternative models for that purpose but choosing to share your life with someone is never easy.

It is not so much a comparison between programmatic models and personal discipleship as it is between two possibilities: programs that encourage personal discipleship and those that do not. Those programs that are not equipping members for personal discipleship are not building the church. Whether they occur in traditional models or in alternative models, the effect is the same, though I would argue the effect is amplified within the alternative models. At least within the traditional models, relationships seem more natural and likely. It takes a different type of creativity and effort for that to occur in at least some of the alternative models.

[1] Christopher Moody, Disciple-Making Disciples: A Practical Theology of the Church (Franklin, TN: Carpenter’s Son Publishing, 2021), 21.

[2] Ibid., 179.

[3] Ibid., 165.

 

Bibliography

Moody, Christopher. Disciple-Making Disciples: A Practical Theology of the Church. Franklin, TN: Carpenter’s Son Publishing, 2021.

Student 2 Ashely

The church today in America is very programmed and structured. In a contemporary programmatic ministry structure, success is usually measured by the number of programs offered and the attendance at weekly services.  A number of large churches have multiple sites where services can be viewed on screens. Especially since the COVID-19 pandemic has forced a new way of operating, most churches now offer online services. It is a good thing that the gospel can now go into homes where it did not previously. It is a good thing that families who refused to wake up and get dressed for church can now hear the Good News preached. The church is weak, however, and can use programs to make up for simple obedience to God at times. Studies say that only around 20% of Americans are committed evangelical Christians, a significantly small number considering the church culture of America.[1]

Jesus, however, did not call Christians to have programs. Jesus said that He would build His church on the rock of Peter’s confession that He was Lord. As Moody says, “Jesus is the currency of the church.”[2] Programs tend to draw people into church gatherings, which is a good thing, but the job of believers is to disciple them once they’ve been drawn in and the focus should always be on Jesus. Believers make up the church of Jesus Christ. Jesus was clear in His call to make disciples (Matt. 28:18-20). This is the Christian’s first goal. Personal disciple making was the method Jesus used. When Christians let other followers walk beside and behind them, intentionally pouring into them, they are following the biblical method of personal disciple-making. Moody calls this “fire begetting fire,” comparing it to a candlelight service where each person lights the candle of the person beside them until the whole room is aglow from one candle.[3]

Does that mean that contemporary churches are all bad? Do we forget about the programs in order to just return to house-church? No, I do not believe so. Some churches, such as Francis Chan’s, have had great success in adopting a house-church method. Many see this as a more biblical and practical methodology. However, the only disadvantage of personal disciple-making may be that it does not draw unbelievers in. Thankfully, it is possible to have a structured program that utilizes disciple-making as the methodology. A church I greatly admire is very large, with a sanctuary that holds thousands. They have multiple services on Sunday mornings and tons of programs. In fact, I just went to a huge women’s conference there over the weekend with almost 5,000 women in attendance. However, this church really focuses on disciple-making. They did away with Sunday School to implement small groups instead where the focus is on disciples making disciples.

The COVID-19 pandemic has helped show the church that church is not a building. I Remember when I was a child the church I went to had a day of service where we canceled our morning worship service to serve our community. They had shirts printed up with our church’s name and the message of  “don’t just go to church, be the church.” The two ministry levels can co-exist but the church has to be focused on Jesus and be about the business of disciple-making as well.

 

[1] Dr. Christopher Moody, Disciple-Making Disciples: A Practical Theology of the Church (Franklin, TN: Carpenter’s Son Publishing, 2021), 22.

[2] Ibid., 23.

[3] Ibid., 64.

Bibliography

Moody, Dr. Christopher. Disciple-Making Disciples: A Practical Theology of the Church. Franklin, TN: Carpenter’s Son Publishing, 2021.