When Paul DOES use the language of superiors and subordinates
In this short series, I’m looking at the ways that Paul referred to people who traveled with him and people he worked with in various cities in order to answer these questions: How did Paul think those who traveled with him and worked with him? Did he think of himself as being a superior with them being subordinates (i.e., a hierarchy)? Did he think of them all as equals?
A few days ago, I introduced the series by asking, “What did Paul think of his subordinates?” Next, I defined some of the terms that I will use: superior, subordinate, and hierarchy. Then, I covered the terms that Paul used most often to refer to other believers: brother/sister and fellow-worker/soldier/servant. Next, I listed all the passages in which Paul used father/child (or mother/child) language and summarized how Paul used father/child language according to those passages. Finally, I asked if Paul used the term “apostle” to denote a superior/subordinate hierarchy.
In this post, I want to examine a passage in which Paul does employ language indicating a relationship of superiors to subordinates (i.e., a hierarchy).
As I mentioned in a previous post, Paul often uses “co-” language to refer to people he worked with: co-workers, co-servants, etc. But, in his second letter to the Corinthians believers (sent after his second visit and before his third visit to Corinth), he used different language to refer to others.
Indeed, I consider that I am not in the least inferior to these super-apostles. (2 Corinthians 11:5 ESV)
I have been a fool! You forced me to it, for I ought to have been commended by you. For I was not at all inferior to these super-apostles, even though I am nothing. (2 Corinthians 12:11 ESV)
The two words translated “super-apostles” in both of those passages is a combination of the word for “apostle” along with a superlative indicating “very chief,” “most eminent,” “most prominent,” etc. Thus, in a hierarchy, Paul is placing these “super-apostles” at the top of the pyramid (at least among apostles).
However, we also know that Paul says that he is being “foolish” using this kind of language to refer to these people, whom he also refers to as false apostles.
Throughout the two chapters (2 Corinthians 11-12), Paul points out several problems associated with these “super-apostles.” Some of those problems relate to the fact that these people DID attempt to place themselves over the Corinthians and others in a superior to subordinate (hierarchical) relationship.
Notice, though, that while Paul says that he is not inferior to these so-called “super-apostles,” he also does not place himself above anyone else. In fact, he says, “I am nothing.” (2 Corinthians 12:11 ESV) Instead of placing himself above the Corinthians or anyone else, Paul continually points to his own weaknesses, lack of abilities, and “foolishness.” He refuses to elevate himself above anyone else, though he also says that he is not inferior (even to these super-apostles).
So, when Paul DOES use the language of superior to subordinate, the calls it “foolishness.” Even when he compares himself to the false apostles and says he is “better,” Paul admits that he is “talking like a madman” (2 Corinthians 11:23 ESV). Paul does not have a positive view of the kind of language that indicates a superior to subordinate relationship (i.e., a hierarchy).
So, if I’m correct in the way that I’ve translated all of these passages (throughout this short series), then Paul never refers to other Christians in language that indicates a superior/subordinate (hierarchical) relationship. At least, he never uses this kind of language in a positive manner.
——————————————
Series: Does Paul refer to other Christians as superiors/subordinates?
- What did Paul think about his subordinates?
- Defining the terms
- The ways that Paul most often refers to other believers
- When Paul refers to other believers using father/child language
- Examining Paul’s use of the father/child language
- Does Paul use the term apostle to refer to a superior/subordinate relationship?
- When Paul DOES use the language of superiors and subordinates
For my organic church friends: Would you be willing to attend a traditional church, indefinitely, to impact another person’s life?
Stephen at “Sword of the Kingdom” has written an excellent post called “A Challenge to the Organic Church.” Actually, Stephen didn’t actually write the post. Instead, he published a conversation that he had with someone else.
Now, you should know, this is a very long post. However, it is well-worth the time it takes to read it, think about it, think about it some more, and ask God what he would have you do about it.
While the person agrees with Stephen about “the overwhelming ‘structural hindrances’ and negative inertia inherent in traditional church or institutional church (IC) settings that hinder God’s kingdom from coming forth as God would desire.”
But, he offers the following “caveats” that we should all consider:
The question to ask upon finding one’s self outside an institutional meeting construct should be:
“Father, to what people or peoples, have you relationally assigned me, in this season of my life, for their benefit and mine?”
That question removes the whole matter from meeting style, structure, likes and dislikes, convictions, etc., and actually lets the Lord . . . be Lord. Indeed, He might give us the freedom to pursue “getting out of the parking lot!” Then again, He might not. He might assign us to a meeting structure and format that is very distasteful and unsatisfying to ourselves, for another’s benefit. Sounds like covenantal kingdom living to me.
In short, there’s no getting around being Spirit-led sons and daughters, under lordship and on relational assignment.
And, he asks the following question of his “organic church” friends: “Would you be willing to attend a traditional church, indefinitely, to impact another person’s life?”
That is definitely a question to consider… how would you answer it?
Does Paul use the term apostle to refer to a superior/subordinate relationship?
In this short series, I’m looking at the ways that Paul referred to people who traveled with him and people he worked with in various cities in order to answer these questions: How did Paul think those who traveled with him and worked with him? Did he think of himself as being a superior with them being subordinates (i.e., a hierarchy)? Did he think of them all as equals?
A few days ago, I introduced the series by asking, “What did Paul think of his subordinates?” Next, I defined some of the terms that I will use: superior, subordinate, and hierarchy. Then, I covered the terms that Paul used most often to refer to other believers: brother/sister and fellow-worker/soldier/servant. Next, I listed all the passages in which Paul used father/child (or mother/child) language and summarized how Paul used father/child language according to those passages.
In this post, I’m examining another term that Paul uses that is occasionally used as an example of a hierarchy with some being superior while others are subordinates. That term is “apostle.”
We know that Paul often refers to himself as an apostle, and he also refers to others as apostles: Apollos (and others in 1 Corinthians 4:9, 1 Corinthians 9:5, and 1 Corinthians 15:7,9), Epaphroditus (Philippians 2:25), Silas (and perhaps others in 1 Thessalonians 2:6), and perhaps Andronicus and Junia (Romans 16:7). Does Paul use the term “apostle” to indicate that these people are superior to others in some type of hierarchy?
No. In fact, if we read what Paul says about apostles, he says just the opposite. He does not place apostles above other Christians. Instead, he places apostles below others as their servants. (See especially 1 Corinthians 4:1,9.)
But, wait! Doesn’t Paul say that apostles are “first” among gifts given by God? Yes, Paul wrote the following to the Corinthians:
And God has appointed in the church first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then miracles, then gifts of healing, helping, administrating, and various kinds of tongues. (1 Corinthians 12:28 ESV)
So, doesn’t this indicate that apostles are first in the sense of superior to other believers in a hierarchy? No. Whatever Paul intended to communicate with that ordered list of spiritual gifted persons (and there are a few suggested interpretations), he could not have meant an order of importance or superiority.
How do we know that Paul could not have meant this? Because just before that previous statement, Paul had written this:
On the contrary, the parts of the body that seem to be weaker are indispensable, and on those parts of the body that we think less honorable we bestow the greater honor, and our unpresentable parts are treated with greater modesty, which our more presentable parts do not require. But God has so composed the body, giving greater honor to the part that lacked it, that there may be no division in the body, but that the members may have the same care for one another. (1 Corinthians 12:22-25 ESV)
Based on that passage, regardless of what Paul means when he wrote, “God has appointed in the church first apostles,” he did not mean that God gave them authority over others or made them superior to others.
As with other types of spiritual gifts (prophecy, teaching, pastoring, evangelizing, serving, encouraging, working miracles, healing, etc.), God gives those gifted as apostles to the church as servants, not as authority figures.
So, Paul did not refer to some as apostles in order to show that they were superior while others were subordinate in some type of hierarchy.
——————————————
Series: Does Paul refer to other Christians as superiors/subordinates?
- What did Paul think about his subordinates?
- Defining the terms
- The ways that Paul most often refers to other believers
- When Paul refers to other believers using father/child language
- Examining Paul’s use of the father/child language
- Does Paul use the term apostle to refer to a superior/subordinate relationship?
- When Paul DOES use the language of superiors and subordinates
Examining Paul’s use of the father/child language
In this short series, I’m looking at the ways that Paul referred to people who traveled with him and people he worked with in various cities in order to answer these questions: How did Paul think those who traveled with him and worked with him? Did he think of himself as being a superior with them being subordinates (i.e., a hierarchy)? Did he think of them all as equals?
A few days ago, I introduced the series by asking, “What did Paul think of his subordinates?” Next, I defined some of the terms that I will use: superior, subordinate, and hierarchy. Then, I covered the terms that Paul used most often to refer to other believers: brother/sister and fellow-worker/soldier/servant and listed all the passages in which Paul used father/child (or mother/child) language.
In this post, I return to those passages in which Paul used father/child (or mother/child) language to determine if he used that language in a sense that denotes a superior/subordinate (hierarchy) relationship.
In most of the passages, Paul simply calls someone his “child” or calls himself a “father” without explaining what he means by using that language. However, a few passages help us understand what Paul means when he uses that father/child language.
To begin with, Paul uses this language in many different contexts. He uses this language in reference to a specific individual such as Timothy, Titus, or Onesimus. However, he also uses father/child language when referring to a large number of people, such as the believers in Corinth or Thessaloniki. This is interesting because Paul spent a lot of time with the Corinthians, but, according to Luke (Acts 17:1-10), he spent only a few weeks with the Thessalonians. Even though he only spent a few weeks with them, he still referred to their relationship like that of a father to a child (1 Thessalonians 2:11-12). (By the way, he also used mother/child language to describe his relationship with the Thessalonians in 1 Thessalonians 2:7-8.)
The passage in 1 Thessalonians is interesting for another reason as well. In that passage, he does not only refer to himself as the “father” in the relationship, but instead he also includes all of those who were traveling with him. We don’t know everyone that Paul included in the “we” as fathers in 2 Thessalonians 2:11, but it seems that at least Silas is included in that number (according to Luke in Acts 17:10).
Finally, in the 1 Thessalonians passage, we read exactly what Paul considered to be their work as “fathers”:
For you know how, like a father with his children, we exhorted each one of you and encouraged you and charged you to walk in a manner worthy of God, who calls you into his own kingdom and glory. (1 Thessalonians 2:11-12 ESV)
So, according to Paul, a “father” is one who exhorts, encourages, and charges his “children” to walk with God. This is not relationship of superior to subordinate (perhaps like a father to an infant child or toddler) but more of a relationship of the more mature toward the less mature… like a father to an adult child who is seeking wisdom and advice from one who has more experience.
Another passage when seems to point in this same position is found in Paul’s first letter to his “child” Timothy:
Do not rebuke an older man but encourage him as you would a father, younger men as brothers, older women as mothers, younger women as sisters, in all purity. (1 Timothy 5:1-2 ESV)
In this passage, Paul is encouraging Timothy to treat all older men as “fathers” (and older women as “mothers”). So, the “father/child” language does not seem to represent a special type of relationship to Paul, but a general relationship between any more mature (or older) believer to a less mature (or younger) believer and vice versa. So, it refers to respect that is owed to someone who is older or more mature, it does not refer to a hierarchy of relationships / functions / positions.
Like I said earlier, Paul does not explain what he means by the father/child language in every passage in which he uses it. However, I think that every passage fits within the patterns that we find in the few passages in which Paul does explain what he means by the father/child language.
What do you think? This is obviously a brief examination of the father/child language. What have I missed?
——————————————
Series: Does Paul refer to other Christians as superiors/subordinates?
- What did Paul think about his subordinates?
- Defining the terms
- The ways that Paul most often refers to other believers
- When Paul refers to other believers using father/child language
- Examining Paul’s use of the father/child language
- Does Paul use the term apostle to refer to a superior/subordinate relationship?
- When Paul DOES use the language of superiors and subordinates
Simple church and structure?
Katie at “Backseat Driver” has been writing posts answering questions about “simple church.” One of her latest posts is called “Questions Continued: What about Structure?”
There is an assumption that those who prefer more simple / organic church to more organized / institutional church also disdain or reject any kind of structure or organization. This is a false assumption. In fact, any time people gather together there will be some kind of structure and organization.
For example, if two people meet together for lunch, there will be some type of organization involved: where are they going to eat, what time, who is going to pay? Answering these questions define an organization for their time of eating lunch together. But, what happens if the same two people get together for lunch the next day? What if they get together for dinner? What if there are now three people getting together? Does the same organization still apply?
So, there will always be some type of organization. The question is: Is the organization flexible and fluid enough to follow the form of the people involved? As the people change (either by new people coming together or people maturing or changing life situations) the organization changes as well. As the opportunities for service change, the organization changes as well.
The other side of that spectrum features an organization that is fixed, and the people must fit themselves within that system or face being rejected (either intentionally or unintentionally).
In her post (linked to above), Katie offers several suggestions and a much fuller explanation than I have provided here.
How can we ensure that the people, giftings, service opportunities, etc. are defining the organization instead of the organization attempting to define the people?
Guest Blogger: Mercy vs. Sacrifice (part 2)
I’ve invited people to write “guest blog posts” for this blog. There are several reasons for this: 1) To offer different perspectives. 2) To generate even more discussion and conversation between blogs. 3) To introduce other bloggers to my readers.
(If you are interested in writing a guest blog post, please contact me at aknox[at]sebts[dot]com.)
Today’s post was written by Norm Mitchell. You can connect with Norm via his email at norman.mitchell.iii [at] gmail [dot] com.
——————————————-
Mercy vs. Sacrifice (part 1)
(You can read Part 1 of this Guest Blogger post here.)
God clearly desires a close relationship with people. Just like old testament Israelites fell back on their sacrifices and religious practices rather than pursuing a relationship with God, many Christians today do the same thing. They go through the motions of what He’s commanded without doing anything to deepen their relationship with Him. They listen to weekly lectures and sing along with the worship songs and put some money in the offering plate and think the’ve satisfied God’s requirements for us. Then they turn a blind eye to (or God forbid, even actively participate in) injustices, both in society and in the church. They look at fellow believers and at the non believers around us with a critical eye instead of a compassionate one while avoiding putting any effort into pursuing a close relationship with God.
Although it leaves us spiritually hollow, it seems easier to do the religious check-in-the-box thing and not put any serious effort into building our relationship with God. After all, relationships are hard work! I find myself doing this in my marriage at times. It’s easier to hand my wife my paycheck and say, “Here. Go to the grocery store. Get some school clothes for the kids, and I’ll go mow the lawn.” That seems so much easier than sitting down and listening to a detailed description of how my wife’s day went, and then taking my girls to the playground, and then having a tea party with them. But living that way isn’t really living. It’s going through daily motions that never provide satisfaction.
But didn’t Jesus say that His yoke is easy and His burden is light? I know it’s true, but it has seemed counter-intuitive to me and I’ve have a hard time believing it–or at least grasping the reality of that statement.
Remember what it was like to be in love? I mean really head-over-heels in love? Not the quick peck-on-the-cheek, “Have a nice day, Dear” kind of love. But a truly passionate, I’d-do-anything-for-you-and-want-to-spend-every-minute-with-you kind of love. With that attitude, is anything really difficult? Not one bit! In fact, I think we’d be willing to do anything at all just to maintain that sort of a relationship. Now I realize that no relationship can be based on feelings, but a truly deep relationship will manifest itself in every area of your life and will be truly satisfying.
I think that kind of mindset/feeling/lifestyle is what God desires for us. He has demonstrated the fullness of His love to us, and in return, wants for us to have a passionate love for Him. I think that if we loved Him like that, He’d fill us with an exuberance for life and a love for other people that would far surpass the feelings we have when we are in love with another human.
How do we get there? I don’t think that more effort is the key. I picture myself trying to patch things up with my wife and saying, “There! I washed the dishes and picked up my socks. Now what are you going to do for me?” You can’t build a relationship simply by service.
Several times, when I’ve said, “I love you,” my wife has asked me, “Why do you love me?” I’ve thought about it, and said, “I really don’t know.” She’s pretty, but I don’t love her because she is pretty. She’s a good cook, but I would love her even if she couldn’t cook. I like her fun, outgoing personality, but I like other people’s personalities also. All I could come up with, is that I love her because she loves me. True love is a really contagious thing.
I John 4:19 tells us that “we love Him because He first loved us.” The Bible makes 2 things abundantly clear:
1. God loves us.
2. We can’t have a relationship with Him without accepting His Son, Jesus Christ.
There was nothing we could DO (no sacrifice we can make) to enter into a relationship with God. He only accepts us because He looks at us and sees the righteousness of His Son that is now attributed to us. Even after we are saved, there is nothing we can DO to deepen our relationship with God. There is no formula. There is no checklist. There is the command to “Love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, mind, and strength; and love your neighbor as yourself.” Which falls right in line with God’s plainly-stated, old testament requirement to “do justly, love mercy, and walk humbly with Him.” Every other directive falls under those two commands. Do “good works” ever come into play? Sure. If you are truly IN LOVE with your Creator and Redeemer, the “good works” will be a natural part of your life as the love of God flows through you and spills over to touch everything around you. There would be nothing you wouldn’t do for God because you value Him so much that you wouldn’t think that any service done for Him is too much or unreasonable.
Romans 12:1 commands us to offer ourselves as living sacrifices to God. Paul tells us that it’s reasonable to give Him every part of us. At first glance, it sounds extremely difficult and costly. But if we look at this verse, and at God through eyes of love, then yeah, I guess it’s the most reasonable thing in the world.
Next up on SportsmanTV: Fishing for Men with Jeremy Myers, professional angler
Ok, so if you didn’t hear the title of this post as if it was an announcement on cable TV for a new fishing program, then I didn’t do it right.
But, on to the post… Jeremy at “Till He Comes” has started a very entertaining and challenging series based on excerpts for a book that he’s working on. So far, he’s published three posts: “The Key to Fishing,” “My First Day on the Water,” and “Stocking Up on Fish.”
I think my favorite of the three posts so far is the second one: My First Day on the Water.
The series would be even funnier to me if I didn’t see myself in the main character too often.
What do you think Jeremy is teaching about “fishing” in this series?
Guest Blogger: Mercy vs. Sacrifice (part 1)
I’ve invited people to write “guest blog posts” for this blog. There are several reasons for this: 1) To offer different perspectives. 2) To generate even more discussion and conversation between blogs. 3) To introduce other bloggers to my readers.
(If you are interested in writing a guest blog post, please contact me at aknox[at]sebts[dot]com.)
Today’s post was written by Norm Mitchell. You can connect with Norm via his email at norman.mitchell.iii [at] gmail [dot] com.
——————————————-
Mercy vs. Sacrifice (part 1)
God has indicated multiple times in both the old and new testaments that He would rather His people forego the mandated sacrifices (and other duties) that He instituted and instead, love Him, obey Him, and show compassion to others.
I used to think that God was about the FORM of religion in the old testament, and that it was really cool how Jesus came and emphasized the paramount importance of the relationship that we have with God over the keeping of the letter of the law. I now believe that God, who does not change, has intended this from the beginning of time. The old testament is full of examples of God’s attempt to strengthen His relationship with those who love Him and to begin relationships with those who did not know Him.
Some Scriptural examples:
And Samuel said, Hath the LORD as great delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices, as in obeying the voice of the LORD? Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat of rams. (I Samuel 15:22)
Saul was commanded to destroy the Amalekites–animals and all. After the battle, however, he kept the king alive and kept the best of the animals. When Samuel questioned him about it, Saul’s excuse was that he only kept the animals to sacrifice to the Lord. And what was Samuel’s response? “Do you think that God cares about sacrifices nearly as much as He cares about obedience? It is better to obey God and listen to Him than to sacrifice to Him.”
Wherewith shall I come before the LORD, and bow myself before the high God? Shall I come before him with burnt offerings, with calves of a year old? Will the LORD be pleased with thousands of rams, or with ten thousands of rivers of oil? Shall I give my firstborn for my transgression, the fruit of my body for the sin of my soul? He hath shewed thee, O man, what is good; and what doth the LORD require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God? (Micah 6:6-8)
The first part of the book of Micah details the evil that the Israelites had come to embrace, emphasizing the wickedness of the rulers and priests that exploited and oppressed the people. God talks about the judgment that he would bring on Israel because of this wickedness.
The second part of the book talks about the salvation that He would bring from their foreign oppressors. This salvation was not merely a political freedom, but was anchored in the coming of the Messiah.
Chapter 6 appears to be a bottom line of sorts. God concludes his grievance against the Israelites: “Have I done anything to hurt you? Haven’t I helped and protected you?”
The response from the people appears to typify the prevalent attitude: “What do You want? Do You want sacrifices and offerings? How about thousands of sacrifices? Would You be satisfied if I gave You my first-born child?” I don’t know if this attitude is born of annoyance, desperation, or something else. “Leave me alone, God. Here’s a sacrifice, now get off my back.” Or maybe it’s “How can I regain my relationship with God? What will it take? Thousands of sacrifices? My first-born child?”
But Micah says of God: “He has shown you what He requires of you: Execute righteous judgments, be compassionate, and humbly pursue a relationship with God.”
O Ephraim, what shall I do unto thee? O Judah, what shall I do unto thee? for your goodness is as a morning cloud, and as the early dew it goeth away. Therefore have I hewed them by the prophets; I have slain them by the words of my mouth: and thy judgments are as the light that goeth forth. For I desired mercy, and not sacrifice; and the knowledge of God more than burnt offerings. But they like men have transgressed the covenant: there have they dealt treacherously against me. Gilead is a city of them that work iniquity, and is polluted with blood. And as troops of robbers wait for a man, so the company of priests murder in the way by consent: for they commit lewdness. (Hosea 6:4-9)
God laments how His people had forsaken Him. He says, “I wanted you to show mercy and to know Me more than I wanted you to sacrifice to me!”
But ye say, Whosoever shall say to his father or his mother, It is a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; And honour not his father or his mother, he shall be free. Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition. Ye hypocrites, well did Esaias prophesy of you, saying, This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me. (Matthew 15:5-8)
Jesus quoted Isaiah when chastising the Pharisees whose excuse for neglecting to care for their parents was that they were using their money for sacrificial giving to God. Their focus on keeping the law came at the expense of a relationship with God and with their family.
Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone. (Matthew 23:23)
But woe unto you, Pharisees! for ye tithe mint and rue and all manner of herbs, and pass over judgment and the love of God: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone. (Luke 11:42)
Jesus rebuked the Pharisees for scrupulously paying tithes on the herbs–the tiniest quantities of crops they had, and neglecting judgment, mercy, and the love of God. I equate this in my mind to finding a dime on the sidewalk, and ensuring that I give a penny back to God. They so entwined themselves in the details of their religion (some out of a desire to increase their prestige and following, and some, probably, out of an incorrect picture of what God required) that their religious ceremony completely eclipsed their relationship with God.
God clearly desires a close relationship with people.
Scripture… As We Live It #223
This is the 223rd passage in “Scripture… As We Live It.”
This SAWLI is the mirror image of the previous “Scripture… As We Live It #222.”
For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast. But, now that you’ve been saved by grace, everything else depends on you: obedience, growth, etc. (Ephesians 2:8-9 re-mix)
(Please read the first post for an explanation of this series.)
Replay: Discipling as Discipleship
Have you ever heard someone (perhaps you?) say something like this, “I learn more about a subject when I study, prepare, and teach a subject.” A couple of years ago, when I was having a conversation with a friend about this, we started talking about how discipleship works like this also. I wrote about some of our conversations in a post called “Discipling as Discipleship.” If I’m correct, then “making disciples” not only helps others (the ones discipled) follow Jesus (i.e., disciples them), it also helps us (the ones discipling) follow Jesus (i.e., disciples us). Confused? See if the post makes more sense…
————————
Discipling as Discipleship
Recently, I was talking with a friend about teaching. My friend said that he thought he learned more by teaching (both the study beforehand and the act of teaching combined) than his students learned. I’ve heard many, many people make this same kind of statement.
In fact, I noticed the same thing when I first started teaching Greek. Although I had taken several classes in Greek grammar, Greek exegesis, and even Greek linguistics, I learned more by teaching an introductory Greek course than I learned in all of those classes combined. (Obviously, I needed the foundations of what I learned in those classes, though.)
Furthermore, I think that I learned things by teaching that I never would have learned if I had remained a student… that is, if I had never tried to teach someone else.
So, if my friend’s statement and other people’s statements and my own experience are any indication, then teaching is a good way for the teacher to learn. In fact, teaching may be the only way for the teacher to learn certain things.
Lately, I’ve been wondering if this is true of discipleship as well. Is making disciples a good way of being discipled? Do we become better disciples (are we discipled) when we help disciple others (make disciples)?
As we help people mature in their faith and help people follow Jesus, are we then in the process helped to mature in our faith and helped to follow Jesus?
Furthermore, could it be that there are aspects of being a disciple of Jesus that we will never learn or understand or obey until we are in the process of discipling others?
To me, these seem like simple, rhetorical questions, all of which would be answered, “Yes!” But, practically, I (and others that I’ve observed) tend to live as if the epitome of discipleship is to continue to be discipled by the master discipler.
When Jesus told his disciples to make disciples, he included this: “teaching them to do all that I commanded you.” (Matthew 28:19-20) It would seem that as Jesus’ disciples made disciples, they would teach them to “make disciples.” Otherwise, the disciples would not be teaching others to do all that Jesus commanded the disciples to do.
But, if my assumption at the beginning of this post is correct, then discipling other is not simply a matter of obedience… it is a form of discipleship itself. In the process of discipling others, we are discipled. Thus, if we fail to disciple others, not only do we fail to obey the teachings of Christ, we also fail to be discipled ourselves.
Perhaps this seems strange or convoluted or even confusing. But, this is what it boils down to: to be a disciple of Jesus, we must make disciples. While we are making disciples, we are being discipled ourselves.