My friend San speaks...
About our decision to move forward with Disciple Driven Church,
San says, "Bob, Congratulations! It was time for you to lead this ministry without strings attached.
Blessings!"
The Planter: Thanks San for undying support.
posted by Bob Carder @ 8:11 PM
36 comments
36 Comments:
Should we be celebrating this? Even if it was necessary, division in the Body of Christ is a very serious and sad matter. Even if it was necessary (and not knowing the details I can't say whether it was or wasn't), I have a hard time seeing how this should be celebrated.
If the denomination was wrong, then we should be weeping for it. If you guys are wrong, then we should be weeping for you. Not knowing who was right or wrong (and it's possible that both are right or both are wrong), I simply weep for the fact that the Body has divided itself further again.
Personally, I don't believe in breaking away from groups except in cases of spiritual abuse and extreme heresy. My pattern has been to live in obedience to Christ and accountability to my brothers and sisters. I've not broken away from groups in the past, but I have been driven from groups for obedience and disciple-making.
Is that what happened here? Who initiated the division?
Rick,
You view this from one perspective. Let me challenge you with a new perspective. Does this need to be an issue of right or wrong? Is this division or multiplication? Should we weep or rejoice? Is it better to wait to be “driven” from a group?
First let us establish that everyone reading this is part of a group that has left another group at one time. Now that we have eliminated the finger pointing possibilities let’s look at the method of leaving which is what I see being challenged in your comment, ie. “Personally, I don't believe”.
I want to clarify a couple of things. Understand that our move was in complete submission to God and obedience to Christ’s call on our lives. The decision was made through much prayer and fasting.
The acceptable reasons for leaving that you state are spiritual abuse and extreme heresy or being driven from groups for obedience. I respect that it looks like you have had to experience this before and it appears you have done this enough to formulate a set of rules for your own decisions. I have only one rule for my decision and that was the clear voice of God and a decision to obey it. Now you may want to judge who is right or wrong and by all means you have that right to judge within the church but how should we judge? The standard you choose…
Should there ever be a need to break away? Should denominations exist in the first place? Are any geographical limits on ministry biblical? Make sure you are asking all the right questions and judging by Scripture not tradition.
I challenge the idea that waiting to be driven from a group is God’s PRESCRIBED method for separation. I have heard others say “you should stay until they kick you out” but I do not see this in Scripture and have never heard this myself from God. What benefit would come from waiting for conflict to escalate to the point of expulsion? Would this express Christ’s love in a greater way? Would this foster more unity? Did it help Wesley and the Methodists? No! Did it help the Mennonites and the Missionary Church? No! If the Catholic Church had recognized the voice of God in Martin Luther’s life it could have avoided a war and persecution that costs thousands of lives.
The real issue here is not division but control. Have the structures of men overstepped the biblical roles prescribed to them? In the time of Christ it was clear from His teaching that the Jewish leaders had overstepped their authority and laid burdens of men on the people. In the time of Luther the Catholic Church had done the same. I think you would find both of these examples as acceptable reasons for separation. You may even make the argument that they were driven from the system. However the issue was the system of men exercising authority it did not truly possess.
Let’s all examine the structures that control and compare them to the authority given in Scripture. My doctrine was never challenged. I was ordained and had completed all the required examinations of the denomination. I served in 3 leadership capacities. I asked to be released to do what God clearly called me to do. Who has the authority to deny that?
In the end, if you need to know who initiated the “division” I will take full responsibility. I just disagree that it is division. Let us rejoice in multiplication of God’s kingdom! Let us rejoice in new works of God! Let us not just examine those leaving but examine the structures that resisted the release!
Hi Terry,
I've got to run so I'll address most of your points later, but just wanted to reiterate that I don't know if your actions were right or wrong. It's really not up to me to judge and I'm not aware of the details anyway. That's what I said in my post.
Then I mentioned the way I personally deal with these things. And it's just that - personal. It's how the Lord has led me to deal with these issues.
Just want to clarify that so our future conversation can be based on what we're actually saying rather than reading too much into one another's comments.
Blessings,
Rick
Rick
Didn't mean anything personal by it, just sounds like you have experienced it before.
I don't think this is a place for such discussion. What good can come from seeking blame or discussing what happened to lead to this.
The blessing is that we are released to do what God has called us to and that is a cause for rejoicing.
Remaining in the vine, staying humble and surrendered to Christ, is the ultimate issue here.
True disciple making is birthed from the inspiration and power of Holy spirit, anything else is another way for man to make a name for himself, lead others after his own name or create another man/works based religion.
God speed brothers and stay humble, because you know God will make sure of that one way or another.
We had no choice but to obey God.
We needed to be able to move disciple making forward while being geographically unrestricted and structurally unhindered and the powers that be rejected our request.
The powers that be made the decision for us. There response caused ours.
We will always love the Church denomination that birthed this movement. But now we are no longer infants who crawl, we are walking and running and that requires fewer limits of control. You gotta release those kids to run when they need to run. Do you now get the picture?
The tree is being shaked right now for ripened fruit and that fruit will fall from the tree. Others will follow.
Just a point/question, h2b-
As a church, as beleivers, we are commanded to multiply. its been our command ever since our creation, even. doesnt the multiplication process REQUIRE pieces to break off? i mean, when cells multiply, they split in two and repeat the process. when a child is born or eggs are laid, they must leave the mother. even in some species where the young are carried there is a time where the young MUST leave. imagine a twenty year old who hasnt separated himself from his mothers womb. its silly, isnt it.
Typically, im not one for using logic, but i have always been in awe of how the physical world mimics the spiritual. when a gathering of believers grows enough, in maturity, not necessarily size, God raises up poeple from within to be sent out to start new things and repeat the process. this should never be mourned, only celebrated!
Thanks anony for your comments. We are connected to His vine for sure. Pray for us in all the other stuff.
Another quick one ...
Multiplication should be celebrated, but division should be mourned. As far as I can tell, this was division. Two parties couldn't find a way to maintain fellowship with one another and they parted ways. In his graciousness God often turns that into multiplication, but it's in spite of us rather than because of us.
Unity - one of the pillars of Keystone - is more important than we often realize. Effective strategies aren't always the most important thing if we're truly trustin Christ.
Of all the things that Jesus could have prayed for in his final hours, why did he choose to pray for unity? Because our unity is our witness to the world (John 17:21) and because it is essential to our spiritual maturity (17:23). When we break fellowship - even when it's necessary to break fellowship - both of these things take a step back.
Finally, there is another reason for leaving a church/team/organiztion in addition to heresy and abuse: disfunction. Some groups become so disfunctional that discipleship just stops - kind of like our economy right now. In those cases one may be led to walk away and pray for God's grace to restore the original group to a place of fruitfulness.
Let's call it dis-functionalism then.
It is not division! Wait! Watch! Listen!
Ok... :-)
Thanks H2B...
One of my confusions with keystone training is that it spends a good percentage of the time showing the differences between a disciple making movement and the institutional church--then there is such shock when the two disagree. If the institutional church is birthing Ishmael and the disciplemaking church is birthing Isaac then how can they agree? Well I absolutely think there can be unity but we must love enough to release each other to ministry. It is a two way release and it should be with joy and commissioning should it not?
"""""
Multiplication should be celebrated, but division should be mourned. As far as I can tell, this was division. Two parties couldn't find a way to maintain fellowship with one another and they parted ways. In his graciousness God often turns that into multiplication, but it's in spite of us rather than because of us.""""""""
Lets look at that. What did the disciples do, did they keep ministering in the Synagogues, or did they leave and divide off? Where they kicked out? Did they leave with joy as to what God was doing or where they mourning over those who kept rejecting the gospel and would not get it?
We couldn't even get a blessing from the powers that be. It's like "If your not with us - you are against us." This is a sad day for me. I thought I knew their hearts.
All we ask for is blessing, release and unity. Why is this such a hard thing to give?
Disciple Driven Church movements cannot be controlled - they must be released.
Martilou - you make some excellent points. When I attended "keystone" a few years ago I totally embraced the teaching. I soon discovered that there is no way the two streams can join hearts - the two streams are flowing in two different directions.
We had to leave in order for God to birth this without control and power plays.
You understand what I am saying because the same organization refused to bless and release your work and pretty well threw you away. Right, Marti?
I celebrate God's birthing of disciple making movements. I'm sad that our former denomination does not bless and release us.
"All we ask for is blessing, release and unity. Why is this such a hard thing to give?"
I do not wish to oversimplify the issue but it appears from the outside that you have asked for blessing to do as you please, without interference.
"geographically unrestricted" and "structurally unhindered" says to me thatyou should be left to do as you see fit and not be challenged at any point. I am not naive enough to hink that there is not more to it than this but it is my honest impression of the statements given.
Paul your honest impression is not true. Your right there is much much more to it.
Thanks for bringing it up though. Disciple making movements must not be hindered as they move through districts.
What is the basis for applying Galatians 4:21-31 to the contemporary institutional church?. In the context this passage refers to living by the Spirit rather than living according to Jewish law. It forms the basis for the freedom in Christ described in Galatians 5, which apparently does not deal with religious structures, but with spiritual formation and maturity. It forms the basis for the ethical demands of 5:13-15 and 19-26. It appears to address those who are mixing a faith-based righteousness with law.
Those who are free will 'not use [their]freedom to indulge the sinful nature; rather [they will] serve one another in love.' (verse 13) This is the real test of personal freedom in the Spirit.
Can we make the exegetical or historical link that *all* work within an existing church is Ishmael and *all* work outside it is Isaac? Or rather should we be checking whether a particular ministry adding 'law' to faith? That can happen in institutional churches or nonchurch disciple-making movements. I've seen many disciple-making movements become extremely legalistic.
Paul doesn't ask them to leave the institutions, he asks them to love one another, forsake the works of the flesh, and allow the fruit of the Spirit to shine through.
Eric, when believers left or were forced out of synogogues it was because the gospel was becoming polluted with a law-based righteousness. Is that what is happening in your context?
Rick, interesting. Where you going here?
I do believe that God is calling all believers to make disciples who make disciples. This was never my command. I have seen many institutional churches become legalistic also. Where have you seen disciple making movements become legalistic. For the life of me I can't recall seeing a disciples making disciples movement in America period - let alone legalistic.
In Disciple Driven Church - We are making disciples who make disciples and we are not legalistic at all. In fact we are as free as Sarah was to make a baby (babies) who became Spirit led and Great Commission obedient.
I'm not addressing Christ's mandate to make disciples of all nations here. Obviously we're to be doing that.
Re: disciple-making movements in America. Obviously such movements have existed or else the gospel would not have spread across the country and across generations, we wouldn't have one of the highest percentages of Christians in the world, and we wouldn't be the largest missionary sending nation. That doesn't mean it's always been done right, but I just go back to my main point again: institution isn't the primary issue. Discipleship is.
Many discipleship based movements have become legalistic. One of the most well-known is the sect International Churches of Christ (a Bible-based cult). Much of the Chinese house-church movements suffer from extreme legalism. I've personally witnessed many legalistic house churches. One of the reasons that discipleship movements can easily slide into legalism is because of the heavy emphasis on obedience.
Legalism sets up artificial standards that exclude others. When groups start believing that they're the 'real Christians,' 'the remnant,' or the only ones who are taking their faith seriously, they're in danger of legalism. Rather than comparing themselves to Jesus (by which standard we all fail), they're comparing themselves to one another and they feel pretty good about themselves.
Legalists are blind to the fact that they're legalistic. Like the Judaizers, they always believe that they're defending Scripture and living the life that God expects of them.
The point of my comment was that the Hagar/Sarah teaching in Galatians is about flesh/Spirit and law/faith.
It's late ... hope that clarifies things!
""""we wouldn't have one of the highest percentages of Christians in the world"""""
Wow, I don't think so. We have the highest group of people who call themselves Christians.
I don't know about Churches in China. I don't know exactly what type of legalism you are referring to, but I know this, I know that on this blog we were called heretics of tradition. You don't get much more legalism than that. I have not seen legalism at all in the disciple driven church. Your right, when we use God's standard for righteousness, there is no room for legalism. However, we do call people to follow Christ and to give their bondage to Christ and be free. That is the difference.
"""""Eric, when believers left or were forced out of synogogues it was because the gospel was becoming polluted with a law-based righteousness. Is that what is happening in your context?""""""
Even worse. A tradition based righteousness. The notes I read from their last meeting, many of the missionary church leaders actually said, "We need to plan the next movement of the Holy Spirit." It is sickening.
Eric said: 'We have the highest group of people who call themselves Christians.'
This is an example of the very legalism I'm talking about. You've created a standard by which you're excluding people from the kingdom. You've created a standard by which you feel justified in saying that we have one of the highest percentages of people who call themselves Christian (but apparantly don't pass your test for being real Christians).
There's an old song by Rich Mullins that says, 'There's a wideness in God's mercy that I cannot find in my own.'
Thank God for that.
saying that a group of people are not Christian because they don't know Jesus is God, the only way to heaven, or led a sinless life, if that is legalism, then legalism is good right? Because I think that is what he was referring to here.
Would you let just anyone claim to be Christian and just tale them at that word? Are Mormons and Jehovahs Witness Christian or does your legalism draw a line there?
This is really a great example of deceptive straw man tactics on your part. Why do you do such things to discredit a brother?
Huh?
interesting...
Hi Anonymous,
To answer your question, no. I do not consider JWs or Mormons orthodox Christians. But we weren't addressing doctrinal issues in this thread.
What straw man was I attacking?
Rick
Rick - I think I follow.
Eric was adressing your comment about America "having the highest percentage of Christians in the world."
When asked about basic essential doctrine most of those claiming Christ in America can't answer correctly.
So why is it legalistic for him to point this out? If you make judgments based on doctrine so can he. It is a doctrinal issue.
The straw man was when you quoted him out of context to make your point when in fact you apply a similar standard to people. I think Straw Man is the proper term for that.
If I am wrong then Anon can clarify.
Hi Terry,
Forgive my slowness, but honestly I still don't follow. Hopefully I won't get attacked, but I just need some clarification.
You asked, 'So why is it legalistic for him to point this out?' Did Eric ever say that he was making his judgment based on doctrinal issues? I just reread the posts and can't find that he did. He refers to tradition but not to doctrine.
I assumed based upon the general tenor of the posts here (which I shouldn't have done) that he was excluding some simply because of their association with traditional churches. If that's the case, then it can easily become a kind of reverse legalism. He never mentioned doctrine.
To attack a straw man is to respond to an argument that no one is making. No one said doctrine is unimportant.
Once again, I'm finding our inability to communicate with civility and respect (to say nothing of clarity!) quite frustrating. Love assumes the best.
The communication is further muddied by the fact that there are multiple Carders and multiple Ricks on this blog, but God knows our hearts and he's keeping us straight. :-)
Love to you all,
Rick (H2B)
H2B said, Hopefully I won't get attacked, but I just need some clarification.
The Planter: Don't worry about being attacked - everyone's focused on me right now. I'll be your cover!
I just re-read the entire feed. I'm exhilarated once again. Man I needed that!
Eric is correct, we real tried to build a bridge rather than leave but it became impossible.
This blog post has generated a nice comment section.
This comment has been removed by the author.
""""This is an example of the very legalism I'm talking about. You've created a standard by which you're excluding people from the kingdom. You've created a standard by which you feel justified in saying that we have one of the highest percentages of people who call themselves Christian (but apparantly don't pass your test for being real Christians).""""""
Yes the standard if JESUS!!!!! According to barna (I admit I am not barna so I suppose it depends if you trust their research) like 75% of people who say they are Christians and attend a protestant church do not even believe in absolute truth. 80% believe that Jesus could have sinned some time in his life. I think it was something like 70% that did not even answer correctly when asked how they knew they were going to heaven. Yes, if I ask someone how they know they are going to heaven and they say something like "I am a good person" I assume that person does not know CHrist. What standard do you use? Is it enough just to be born to Christian parents to consider yourself a Christian, because that is why we have so many Christians in the US today. "Well, my mom was Methodist and my dad was catholic so yeah, I am a Christian I suppose." That is what people actually think. We MUST call to something higher.
Post a Comment
<< Home