If I move town, for a new job, away from my current ‘church plant’, it is very likely that I will lose touch with many people in my church community.
The ones I keep in touch with, were they my ‘real’ friends, and the others just fellow believers?
Jesus said “… greater love has no-one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends …” [bible:niv:nt:john14]
We all have different ideas and expectations about friendship.
Should ‘discipleship’ include ‘friendship’?
30 comments:
Having read this blog I have a number of comments I wish to post!
Firstly within the context of church I find that one only has to encounter hard times or doubt to find out who your 'real' friends are or aren't and who stays in touch or provides support or not.
The problem in my mind is at least tri-fold well with my current thinking at least.
Firstly it is one of culture and the language used within it. One may be asked 'how are you doing?' when what is meant by the enquirer is 'have you had a good day?' The difference in my mind is clear and the expectation created by one query over the other explicit. Hence also the confusion, upset and hurt caused by the common misinterpretation. I think greater awareness of the language we use to prevent expectations being created that are not intended is required.
Secondly Churches are bizarre environments filled with individuals who normally would not neccessarily gel together. This creates a tension whereby as Christians we should be welcoming but how do we bridge that gap with people we would not normally choose to befriend or acquaint with, especially whilst trying to remain sincere.
Thirdly as you point out everyone has different idea's about what friendship is! 'Communnity' is another word bandied about in churches and at times these phrases appear inter-changeable. Again we come back to the importance of the language we use. In my view 'friendship' and 'community' are different 'community' is about belonging to a group of like minded individuals that may at times respond to an individual need or crisis within or outside of that community.
Friendship is more personal, built on mutual trust, understanding and above all acceptance. For me it is the latter part 'acceptance' where Christian freindship falls down... I find we are all too quick to point out the splinter in our brother's eye whilst ignoring the plank in our own! How can we learn to be more accepting particularly when we might dissaprove of our 'friends' actions, lack of repentance or perceived errors! How can we allow our 'friend' to learn from their own experiences without constantly trying to save them from themselves or fix them. How can we allow our 'friends' to just be themselves warts and all?
Your question of discipleship comes in here, how do the two mix... friendship and discipleship? Especially when trying to be accepting... which is more important loving your brother (friend) or fixing him?
some good points and questions.
interestingly, on 'language', "how you doin" is an open question that i ask my work colleague 5-6 times a day cos its an invitation for him to tell me as much or as little as he sees fit. about the job, his health, home life, feelings, whatever. i don't imagine he will ever be any more vulnerable with me, than i am with him.
i like your definition of friendship. i think friendships take years to build. and 'hard times' are the mortar between the bricks.
so what is discipleship? and where in the bible does it come from?
Interesting question. I do feel that part of our discipleship is to help more people to hear about Jesus, I don't mean convert them and get them to sign up to church, God choses when to meet with people. But I do feel that if we are not able to talk about him to others how can they stand a chance of making up their own mind.
Who is it easier to take to about God, our friends or our enemies? I have some friends who I'd rather not to be fair, but it's still easier with people you know, and you know how far you can go in exposing your own faith.
So does discipleship call us to make new friends? I think we do have a calling to reach out to people who are not what we call friends, but we also have to respect if they reject that reaching out.
We all have friends who are at varying levels in our lives, some are peripheral people who go in and out, some are more long term and trusted. Neither one may be better or worse than the other, as long as we all agree on where our friendship is - there's nothing worse than believing someone is on the edge when they believe they are close and trusted, or vice versa.
Sometimes there is a pressure in church to treat everyone as a "friend" and maybe assume relationships are better than they are, what this means is that we don't talk about it when people annoy us, because of a perceived friendship. We are Christian and nice and don't confront the issue as it stands.
Sometimes we are called to tell others they've annoyed us, to help them understand that their words were hurtful, but in return we need to accept them helping us take the plank out of our own eyes!! Because sometimes discpleship and friendship alike are about being real and honest.
I agree 'How you doing' is an open question and an invitation to say as much or little as you wish. However within the context of church I think the connotations are slightly different and one should take care not to give false impression or create a scenario where by follow up is expected by the subject but not by the enquirer, this can lead to a lot of upset and hurt.
As for discipleship I can't say that I am any clearer on what this means. Personally I would like it to mean walking alongside someone through the good and bad times in life, offering support, opinion and challenge but not being offended if they are not taken up or accepted. Discipleship is about being available to laugh, cry, hug, advise, listen, pray, help, support, challenge.... it encompasses and offers everything whilst also remaining objective and appropriately challenging.
Given that this is what I consider the bar no wonder so many fall short in my opinion.... and perhaps me also!!
Before closing re Don't Quote me's comments telling others about Jesus is surely evangelism rather than discipleship? About having friends at different levels, in some ways I agree however I personally choose to distinguish between my friends and my acquaintances, I have many acquaintances but few friends. In this way it clarifies the issue you highlight regarding perceived friendship... I try to keep clear boundaries for myself in order that for my friends and acquaintances there is no confusion about where they stand... this again comes back to the language we use and how self aware we are! I think this relates to your comments about being open and honest, I would choose to use self awareness as almost 90% of communication is non verbal!
Just read an excellent quote in Babara Glasson's book, mixed-up blessing
"Being a friend is not the same as being friendly"
So maybe it's not a case of finding out who our "true" friends are, as if the others are only pretenders. But maybe we're just finding out who our friends are, and who was being friendly, rather than trying to separate out who are the better ones!
on 'language';
dontquoteme, what do you mean by '... we have a calling ...'? i dont understand this can you say it a different way.
also, apoc, when you say 'in the context of church' what do you mean? i am a believer and therefore i am in the context of church, no?
... and i think you should both read Jesus teaching on the plank/splinter again!
on 'discipleship';
the word doesnt appear anywhere in my bible. but since a 'disciple' is 'one who follows Christ', my definition of discipleship is 'being a follower of Christ, in the world'.
i dont feel under any obligation to 'convert' anybody or 'evangelise' anybody, so if i make friends with someone new, i dont have expectations of them.
people who have less in common, different sense of humour, watch different films, different backgrounds just take more work, but its worth it.
i will endlessly talk about 'my journey' because i like green eggs and ham sam i am. and if they tried them too, they would agree.
to have expectations of a friend comes from our consumeristic culture. that which i can get. being a good friend is about giving. how can i be a good friend to someone else? some people i like more than others, but i try to be a good friend. isnt that what Jesus said?
i know the people i will phone when our car breaks down in the middle of the night. they might not all be able to help cos of various commitments, but thats ok cos we understand each others commitments and there is a pecking order.
to me, it is a paradox. i see that discipleship/friendship are both separate and interwoven.
When I say calling I merely mean what I believe Jesus is calling us to do. It's a phrase I use a lot in my church as it's part of the Methodist agenda. Sorry if others have different perceptions of the word.
When you say I should revisit the plank/speck teaching what exactly did you mean? I only meant that if we criticise people and make them aware of their mistakes that we have to be aware that we also are not perfect, and could just as easily have offended them.
what did Jesus actually say about the plank/speck thing?
im still confused on 'calling'. is it based on what Jesus said or on what the methodist church said?
when you say 'we are called' do you mean all people or all believers or just you? and how can you tell the difference.
am i asking too many questions?
Sputnik,
What I meant by 'in the context of church' is that what ever you are saying will have different meaning or connotations depending on where it is and who it is to!!
It is about having a shared language, therfore if I ask the bloke down the pub 'how are you doing' I will get a vastly different response to if I ask this at church, well specifically at a certain church....
This is what I mean by a shared language that phrase 'how are you doing' took on a greater importance (perhaps just for me!) within the context of church as it was offered as a loaded question as an opportunity to talk about any difficulties.... I guess in retrospection it is also about the understanding and meaning that I or we personally attach to something.
I continue to be of the opinion that we need to be aware of the language we use and how this can impact upon a situation and to take personal responsibility for this!
apoc. ok i hear what you are saying.
i agree that language is important but for different reasons.
'the church' is a group of believing Christians.
when we say 'go to church', we usually mean 'meet with other believers' or 'meet with other believers who subscribe to the same vision' or 'with other believers who submit to the same leadership'. either in a 'church building' or other structure.
i have spent the last 8-9 years battling with my experience that what goes on within religious meetings (and ive visited a lot of 'churches') bears too little relevance to the world that i have lived in and still live in. and yet this isnt what i read in the bible.
in my experience, having aspects of my faith entwined with individuals and organisations who set unrealistic expectations on themselves (and so "... fall short ..."), i have been in danger of allowing my faith to drown when i decided to jump the ship of 'organised religion'.
this is why im not keen on religious straplines and jargon etc. i would rather know what Jesus really said and taught. reading the bible and meeting with other believers is what keeps us afloat on our journey.
Sputnik.... surely a church is just a building?!!
No seriously ok a group of fellow believers, however the beauty of church is contained in such.... the believers or the people all created uniquely by God with different thoughts, opinions, ideas, understanding beliefs, strengths, weakness's etc.... however how representative is any of this within 'church'. My opinion is it is not... As you say we appear to submit ourselves either to a vision or to leadership and somewhere within that our individuality gets lost... this is what creates what you call organised religion because we sell out, or if we don't we are not allowed to fit... accordingly to western values it appears that religion should be uniform, organised...
Churches biggest failing is that it does not appreciate its diversity in that if you are not caught up in whatever the current teaching or mission is or woe betide you encounter difficulties you get left behind or cast off..
Well I hear you say this is where friendship comes in.... At this point I re-direct you to my earlier comments.... bitter me.... never... still to continue this is why LANGUAGE is important to me.
Anyway I am reminded of comment that I have heard all to frequently of late 'If you ever find a perfect church, don't join your spoil it'!!!!
There is in my opinion lots of truth in this, we are all fundamentally flawed on account of being sinners. I have retorted to this comment that well at least I can find one that is more in line with what I think and feel.
However I am begininning to realise that even this is not true all that I can hope for is somewhere that will take me as they find me and accept me as such... sadly this too is proving difficult....
Perhaps then this is about me? I have asked myself that but I often come accross other people who I would say appear to have similar experiences and feelings to myself... yourself included Sputnik...
So I ask what would happen if we all stood up and made a stand against the things we see as unjust or tried to start a church revolution or even our own church.... what would we model it on, what would it look like, would we be in danger of getting something else fundamentally wrong!?
Interesting that you should raise the idea of church revolution, surely this is what Jesus did. He came in and said this isn't church, this about appearing to be righteous, which is damaging, when the religious outside is not matched by a loving inside.
Ok Jesus is God, is of God, is partly God? Not sure on best way to see this. But granted he had the upper hand in ringing in changes. That doesn't mean we mere mortals can't revolutionise our churches.
I know I have mentioned Methodism before, but John and Charles Wesley created the Methodist church because they didn't like the way things were done.
I'm not saying we should all start our own new church and split off into factions. But maybe we shouldn't be scared to stand up and say we're not happy with what we see as unjust.
It's sometimes a lonely place, I have been there, but other times when you speak up you find others who have always agreed and been too worried to say anything. When you find that many people agreeing you have to ask is God in this, and maybe, just maybe something can change.
Change can be small, but it can start ripples. We set up alternative worship at our church for the young at heart, who didn't want to sing old hymns to the cronky organ. From that we now often have a few hymns each service which are "new" (even then most of them are about 30 years old).
We now have new housegroups and music concerts, from one small thing. So I say stand up, stand up with an alternative, I don't like this, can I do it this way instead? And who knows!!
revolution. change. now we are getting somewhere! this is the talk of what i call the missional church.
not change for the sake of change, or like we're doing something that hasnt been done before. but because we forget. because we dilute and culturalise truth. because we get content with our 'coach potato' contributions in meetings. our desire for 'peace' becomes a desire for 'peace and quiet', we head for the path of least resistance etc, etc.
so how do we recognise this 'revolution' when we see it?
a new denomination or stream? a new logo, strapline or strategy diagram? meetings with music and liturgy that more people like?
i dont think so.
i think it begins by reversing wrong-thinking.
and this is how hard it is ...
i am trying to be 'revolutionary' by applying apocs simple notion about the importance of language i.e. what is 'church'
but still we are still using 'church' to mean 'a group of believers with common values.
so why not stop?
do i believe in salvation by grace, through Jesus, by faith? yes.
so *i belong to the church*.
so revolution amongst the church can happen here and now.
anybody who has been on the receiving end of the "... dont join the perfect church, you'll spoil it ..." comment will tell you that prescriptively it is meaningless. we are already in the imperfect church! the issue is finding a bunch of believers who have in common, the 'values' which are most important to us.
i was recently a newcomer at a 2 hour meeting and nobody told me the purpose or vision of the gathering. at the end i asked 'what the point of the group was?'. nobody took offence. there was a seed of an explanation.
at the next meeting, a straight-talking explanation was(almost) the first thing that was said. another newcomer was there. we instantly could agree that which we had in common. 5 important values. no assumptions.
i just opened my mouth and asked a question. revolution :)
Hey Don't quote me, I am know that change is possible in certain situations see my latest comments in "Open Forum or MonoBlog?".
However what do you do when people are not open to what you have to say, where you are discredited on the basis of your perceived 'walk with God' where other peoples refusal to accept you for who and what you are blinds them to anything that you have to say? Where because your values, opinions, thoughts and beliefs differ you are alienated because other people cannot or do not want to accept responsibility for themselves and ignorant corporate mass acceptance rules because people put up and shut up? What then?
This is what Sputnik calls a desire for peace and quiet, no one likes the person who rocks the boat, who asks why, who challenges. Surely though everyone is unique in their understanding, interpretation and experience of the World and everything in it... why then can this not be explored and used to broaden understanding... In my opinion people can all read a passage in the bible and glean something different from it determined not only by where they are currently at in life but also where they have been! Does this make it any less important or genuine? IS that not the beauty of most of Jesus's teachings that they are timeless and different things can be picked out of them at different times? Anything else will surely run the risk of turning the bible into a theory book?
Sputnik, I did not quite follow your thread about trying to be revolutionary could you say more?
im not sure that i agree with you on 'how to read the bible'.
mostly, i would say that the more and more you read the bible, it becomes clearer and clearer that it covers some history of mankind, and God's plan for mankind, where each part has a very specific message, with a very specific original audience, which is both true and can be verified by secular historical context. and to teach outside of this is what builds false doctrines.
on the 'revolutionary' thing, all i was trying to say is this. i agree with you that language is important. i went on to say that i think the way we use the word 'church' is unhelpful to our understanding of the word. then, in the comment that followed, the word was used 4 times in a 'not helpful' way. revolution is hard! :)
also in my personal journey, i have recently started meeting with a group of believers. i struggle to be at a meeting where the purpose and common values are not made clear (which again i find unhelpful). so every meeting now i ask 'what are we here for' if nobody has already said so. it helps prevent wrong assumptions. i feel like its my contribution to the meeting in the hope of some broader church revolution. i agree with 4 of the 5 common values we have, and i think the 5th is just misunderstood because of 'badly chosen language' which we're talking about.
I believe that the bible has to be open to interpretation and different people will see different things in at different times, just as an exmaple you may read the story of the prodigal son and at one stage feel like the son who went away and others feel like the one who stayed behind.
If it wasn't open then it wouldn't be relevant to each generation, it would die because it doesn't translate to our modern experience.
Apoc - In terms of challenging those who will not see anything other than their own point of view (although that's my interpretation if what you said not in fact what you did say) I believe that the bible offers us some insight on this, although don't ask me where the story comes from as I don't know!!
It follows that should you have a disagreement with someone you should challenge them on a one to one in a prviate place without telling everyone else how upset you are, give them a chance to defend themsleves and explain what they did, and why they did it. Simple enough.
If they don't listen/change you should then invite a third party to be with you when you speak to them a second time, someone independent. Ok easy enough.
If that doens't work you should raise your feelings in front of the whole group (although the definition of group is your choice) in order that everyone knows that you are not happy and you have tried to address it. Easy peasy, why don't we all do it?
It's one model I suppose, although the other option, which also has a biblical basis, walk out of there and shake the dust off your sandals, if they read their bibles they should be offended!!!
I'll take my tongue out of my cheek now!
good stuff, but read it carefully.
its in [bible:niv:nt:matt18].
it doesnt say anything about 'shaking off sandals' or going anywhere. that sort of thing causes division in the church (not 'a church', the church = group of believers).
what does it mean 'to treat someone as a tax collector'?
on 'reading the bible', i would agree that, very often, i believe that God is speaking 'prophetically' through something in the bible, that is a message specifically for me. but i also believe that God does this through secular books, secular films, things other people say, and do, etc.
to me, this is something different.
Well Sputnik the beauty of this is we can agree to disagree re how to read the bible, however you do go on to say that God speaks prophetically to you through the bible which would seem to agree with DQM and I. Therefore can we not agree that this would be your unique interpretation based on where you are at at that time? Also I agree I find challenge in secular books, documentarys and music.
I see what you are saying now about the term 'church' It has many different defintiions does it not? We can only try and be clear, I guess where I have referrenced 'church' fundamentally I have meant both individuals within it i.e. a minority at one time but also the collective e.g. a movement say NF or Vineyard at others. From now on lets agree to be clear. Viva La Revolution!!
DQM and Sputnik you both seem to be saying the same things re challenging others Sputnik just referenced it!! (Matt 19 vs 15).
The problem is that some people are too insecure to be able to accept or listen to a differing perspective, there is no small irony in people who have 'leadership' but not 'self awareness'. I guess at the end of the day we are all sinners!! (Thats my whole point though, I am willing to accept them for who they are albeit it only if they accept me for who I am!!!)
Before closing, earlier in this blog we discussed discipleship! I read an interesting article the other day; an interview with John Stott in which he is quoted as saying "You know this growing church probably as well as any Westerner does. I wonder how you evaluate it?
The answer is "growth without depth." None of us wants to dispute the extraordinary growth of the church. But it has been largely numerical and statistical growth. And there has not been sufficient growth in discipleship that is comparable to the growth in numbers" the weblink for this is:- http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2006/october/32.94.html.
I trust that this is not advertising persay but so people can get the context by reading the article!!
Anyhow I personally agree with John Stott, the church seems to bring in people but does not in my experience nurture or support them (discipleship) and we get back to previous discussion about as a Christian you are just not allowed problems... God is bigger than them remember! Whilst biblically this is correct how many of us honestly can say we always feel like that? I personally do not always find God big enough to soothe my woes, why? because I have HUGE woes! No just because ultimaely I am human and prone to doubt, pessimisim, fear etc etc... Does it help when someone slaps me on the back and says 'Don't worry, God is bigger than your problems' Erm in a word..... NO. Would it help if they stood by me, listened to my concerns and God forbid prayed... erm YES. To be fair prayer has been offered but without being funny I personally need to be heard and understood before (counselling model!!) I can move on, perhaps I should not apply this to my spiritual life, but to quote Popeyee I am what I am!! (made in God's image!)
To finish re tax collectors it says in my concordance they were hated by the Jews not sure if that answers your question Sputnik? See Matt 9vs9 and concordance notes NIV Life application bible!
I hear what you're saying here. I superficial response about how God is there for me is not helpful. God works through others, so we need them to hear us, not expect God to descend upon us and make everything alright. And you know what sometimes the last thing I want to do is "hand my woes to God" "let Go and Let God". Anyone can quote such things, but listening is a skill.
Sometimes being human and flawed I just wanna be angry at God and not talk to him. I know I'll go back eventually, and I know I'll be accpeted back, but sometimes I don't want to rest in him, I want to yell and cry and get it out of MY system MY way. I am a selfish egotistical human being, and that will not change!
i dont understand what youre saying here dqm.
apoc
your references to your niv sources etc made me smile. most of my doctrine is based on a 'basic' niv and a 'niv compact concordance'! im interested in commentaries, and 'frilly extras' etc but try not to lean on them too heavily since, like this blog, much of the writing is based on peoples individual views and journeys.
in quoting the niv, i deliberately only quote 'chapters', rather than 'chapter&verse' to help me (&others) reduce the risk of reading 'out of context'.
Sputnik,
I can't comment for DQM though I think she is empathising with my comments!! I can certainly relate with what DQM says in the 2nd paragraph!
Most of my understanding is base on NIV stuff, just an interesting thought but are bibles not also subject to someone's interpretation of original texts etc... how sure can we be that they got it right?!
Along this line why is it we are told that revelation is pictorial imagery and yet Genesis which is equally mind blowing is not? I am not convinced that creation happened as depicted by Genesis? I am convinced though that if Revelation happened as depicted i would poop my pants!
On the quoting of scripture Sputnik good point well made but elsewhere in the blog you, in my opinion, have still misquoted scripture!!
Anyway aside from this we are straying from the original thread... How much further on are we in our understanding of discipleship....? Have we reached an agreed definition? What were your thought Sputnik on my comments in my last blog?
indeed the niv, which i cite, contains a selection of books in its canon(?). it is subject to translation, mistakes, etc.
i am happy for someone to replace my niv with something more accurate, but since my company wont sponsor me to go to bible school, i will make do with my niv.
besides, if i needed to know the bible was 'right' to believe, i wouldnt need to have 'faith'.
on revelation. yes, john was psychotic when he wrote revelation. these days his writings would have been discarded.
on genesis, its hard to believe. a day was a period of light and then a period of dark. i think the digital watch came later.
on misquoting scripture, do you mean 2cor6 in the Jesus vs paul post? misquote? no. taken out of context? probably yes.
Fair point about having faith, however is there not a difference between knowing the bible is 'right' to believe i.e. God's word and knowing what is written in it is right or accurate. Anyway aren't we supposed to believe in God not the bible?! Surely the bible is the manual for our belief? Also can we pick and choose which bits we subscribe to? How do we decide which bits are interpreted correctly?
To be honest Sputnik I think you are splitting hairs is not taking something out of context whether delibertae or not the same as misquoting it?
WOW just watched an amazing documentary (Apoc watching a documentary I hear you all say....never!!!) about the origins of our bible which I think given this thread we may all find useful. For now here is a quick link to the web page
http://www.channel4.com/culture/microsites/C/can_you_believe_it/debates/revo.html
This is a little potted but I will endevour to write up my understanding soon!
http://www.channel4.com/culture/microsites/C/can
_you_believe_it/debates/revo.html
And again hence the last removed comment.... how annoying!
this is a good synopsis of recent church history.
"... when we talk on the phone, i usually have nothing in particular i need from them. i'm just calling to see how their week is going ...".
a refreshing excerpt on 'what friends do' that cropped up in a book by a guy called randall neighbour.
Post a Comment