The Discipling Dilemma - Chapter 9

Article Index
The Discipling Dilemma - Chapter 9
Early Warnings: The 1970s
The Warnings Continue: The 198Os
Notes for Chapter 9

Early Warnings: The 1970s

Warnings against the abuses of authoritarian discipling appear as early as 1974. In 1974, Bob Buess wrote The Pendulum Swings which included warnings about the authoritarianism advocated by Watchman Nee.1 The following year, Buess wrote Discipleship Pro and Con which warned about the influence of Juan Carlos Ortiz and what Buess called "neo-discipleship legalism. "2 It was on June 27, 1975, that Pat Robertson published his Open Letter to Bob Mumford listing his objections to the approach of the Fort Lauderdale Shepherds as discussed in the previous chapter. In November of that year, Mumford replied in a "Circular Letter" which explained his views on such matters as authority, shepherding, discipleship, submission, Scripture, and finances. Pat Robertson's Open Letter to Bob Mumford and Mumford's reply can be found in Volume II of Presence, Power, and Praise: Documents on the Charismatic Renewal.3

In September of 1975, Kathryn Kuhlman expressed her concern about this movement in a speech at Youngstown, Ohio. In this speech she said,

There's a new doctrine called "the discipleship and submission movement You may have never heard of it before. But it is so subtle and doing so much harm that if somebody doesn't do something to rebuke Satan and stop this movement, it is going to absolutely destroy the great charismatic movement. ... Not only do they tell you to give your money to the shepherd, but to become involved in cell groups and to "reveal your deepest thoughts." I'll tell you one thing. I'm not going to tell anybody my inner thoughts. [4]

On October 10, 1975, Christianity Today published an article on "The Deepening Rift in the Charismatic Movement."5 The problem discussed in this article was the same discussed by Kathryn Kuhlman in her speech at Youngstown, Ohio. Both focused on authoritarian abuses by the Fort Lauderdale Shepherds.

The Fort Lauderdale Shepherds issued a "Statement of Concern and Regret" in March of 1976 at a meeting in Oklahoma City--a statement quoted in the previous chapter. This statement, however, did not put matters to rest. Warnings continued about the difficulties, doctrinal questions, and possible emotional problems connected with the discipleship/shepherding matter. It was in 1976 that Carl Wilson published his warnings against authoritarianism in his book, With Christ in the School of Disciple Building.6

While the idea of shepherding/discipleship was running rampant throughout the loosely-structured charismatic movement, the older Pentecostal bodies such as the Assemblies of God and the Pentecostal Holiness Church already had their lines of organization. The General Presbytery of the Assemblies of God adopted a position paper on August 17, 1976, in which they took a firm stand against this movement. In this position paper, later published in tract form, the General Presbytery said,

It is true that many new converts look to someone to keep them from error and to guide them into truth. However, where the individual relies altogether on another person to protect him from all error, he will cease searching the Scriptures and fail to develop his own ability to withstand false teaching. . . . Some find the pattern for their new order of discipleship in the relationship of Jesus with His disciples, forgetting that this was done within Judaism before Jesus began to build His Church. Instead they should seek guidance for church patterns in the Acts and Epistles. . . . Along with this there is a current tendency to downgrade democracy in the church in favor of submission to authority. . . . Jesus must be kept central. He is the great Shepherd of the sheep. The only covenant we need is the one sealed in His blood. [7]

Earlier in 1976, in the April issue of Eternity, Russell T. Hitt discussed this controversy in an article entitled "The Soul Watchers." In this article he reported that "in one congregation an upper middle-class family found themselves in conflict in their church because they bought a house that was not approved by their elder or 'shepherd."' He stated that ". . . segments of both Roman Catholic and Protestant charismatic communities have been rocked by controversy over what has been labeled the 'shepherding' issue." He quoted the leader of a Roman Catholic charismatic commune who said, "Life in this community includes strict rules of submission on the part of the members who are subject to the consensus decisions of the leadership and the specific orders of the individual to whom one is submitted."

He went on to comment on the authoritarianism in Campus Crusade, the Navigators, and Robert Coleman's book The Master Plan of Evangelism. He then presented a key objection to this kind of authoritarianism. He said, "One of the marks of the new life in Christ is freedom. Each person, though linked organically with the body, has the privilege of individual growth. . . .To dominate a redeemed person is demeaning to him even in a human sense. In the new humanity it is even more questionable."8

By the next year, 1977, Michael Harper, leader of a prestigious British charismatic organization, was sounding his concern in the book Let My People Grow. In this book he made several arguments that are especially relevant for the present study.

In more recent times some charismatics have been giving even more emphasis to what they call "discipling." But what is important to notice is that the New Testament carefully avoids using this kind of language to describe relationships between believers. Instead it uses the language of service. . . . If the language of "discipling" is used in place of "serving," it will simply be a way of replacing anarchy with tyranny. . . . One method which has been widely advocated is that adopted by Juan Carlos Ortiz in Argentina.... Ortiz gets his mandate for using the term "discipling" from Matthew 28:19-20. . . . It seems a strange way to interpret this command to say that Jesus tells us to make disciples for ourselves. The master-disciple relationship is, of course, used frequently to describe the relationship that Jesus had with others on earth, and, therefore, can equally describe our relationship to the Lord today. . . . But it is never in the New Testament used to describe the relationship which Christians have with one another. . . . It is best not to use the "discipling" terminology at all. Not only is it biblically unsound, but it also injects into this area an authority factor which is inappropriate.9

Bill Hamon's church history, The Eternal Church, was written from a charismatic vantage point. In this book, Hamon discusses the decade of the 1970s. One of the issues he cites is that of the discipleship, shepherding controversy. Concerning this movement, he said, "Some taught and developed a Christian leadership pyramid, chain-of-command. The pastor became almost a papal leader to those under him." He went on to observe, "All decisions had to be made by leadership, even daily and personal activities of members." Then he notes that "some disbanded the weekly united meeting of a large congregation, breaking it up into small house meeting cell groups only." Hamon concludes, however, that before the end of the 1970s, "most non-denominational Present-truth Charismatic churches had developed a balance in doctrine and practice concerning Discipleship, Shepherding, Family Life, and Church Structure."10

The difficulties being encountered and the subsequent criticisms, however, were by no means confined to those in the charismatic movement. In 1978, Bailey E. Smith, former president of the Southern Baptist Convention, penned his disenchantment with the discipling movement in his book Real Evangelism. He wrote, "When one allows someone to shadow his life as his 'spiritual leader' and dominate his thinking, he takes on the quirks, oddities and idiosyncrasies of his discipler. He becomes a disciple alright--of Tom, Henry, Bill, or Harold, but not of Jesus." He went on to tell about one leader who had produced hundreds of disciples--but every one of them had his obvious theological error. He concluded, "Their God-given distinctiveness has been absorbed by their hovering discipler."11

In 1979, Michael Green dealt with the discipleship/ shepherding issue in a book on evangelism, First Things Last: whatever Happened to Evangelism? In his balanced comments that recognized both strengths and weaknesses in the movement, he wrote,

In recent years one of the fastest growing Christian organizations has been the network of house churches throughout the world. . . . Part of the strength of this movement has been the practical caring which members show for one another, not only in the practical affairs of life, but in spiritual growth and development. But so strong has been this emphasis on individual caring and what is called "delegated authority" (held in a chain going up through the pastor to the Lord) that something dangerously akin to authoritarianism can--and sometimes does--ensue . . ..Part of the value of being a Body, part of the value of a shared eldership (as you always find in the New Testament) is to preserve Christians from the vagaries of one individual leader. We need variety in those over us in the Lord. 12

In April of 1979, David Breese wrote in Moody Monthly to answer the question, "Why Jonestown?" These words were written in the wake of the shock of Jim Jones having led nearly one thousand people to their death:

It was the deadliest communion service in history. One by one--children, adults, the elderly--they took the deadly potion. Four hours later, 913 lay dead in the commune at Jonestown, Guyana. . . . The people at Jonestown were seeking an authority figure, someone who would do their thinking for them and to whom they could surrender their wills. . . .Only Jesus Christ deserves disciples. Strong leaders, clever speakers, commanding personalities -- all can easily become mediators of our faith. Even many "discipleship" programs are suspiciously cultic. Jesus Christ is the only one who has earned the right to be the object of our faith. [13]

Later in 1979, David L. Waterman wrote an article on "The Care and Feeding of Growing Christians" which was published in the September issue of Eternity. In this article he warned,

Christians seem to be sprouting some new terms--phrases like "personal headship," "one-on-one," "the multiplication process," "discipling relationships," "spiritual parenting," and even "spiritual pediatrics." What's going on? Afoot in many different evangelical groups, irrespective of their different brand-names, is a quiet, but persistently growing revolution in interpersonal relationships called "discipleship." You are either a "discipler" or a "disciplee," depending on your "age" and maturity in Christ and where you stand in relationship to someone else. [14]

Then Waterman quotes Chuck Miller who said, Discipleship is not "running people through a machine and producing Xerox copies." Too many people have seen discipling as putting people on a conveyor belt of godliness, and after so many weeks or months or years, having them go off the conveyor belt at the far end with a big "D" stamped on their foreheads meaning "discipled." Those who come off the conveyor belt seem so identical. This certainly disagrees with Scripture. [15]

He then concluded with this explanation,

Where does all this talk about "spiritual" parenthood and reproduction come from anyway? Well, you can credit the late Dawson E. Trotman, founder of the Navigators, for most of it, at least in our generation.. . . .What most people mean by discipleship today is nothing more than the post-war concept of "follow-up" in new wineskins. [16]

In October of 1979, Ronald M. Enroth, a sociologist, wrote in Eternity about "The Power Abusers." In this article he talked about the dependency needs of many people in our rapidly changing and often confusing world. Such people, he said, are attracted to authoritarian movements." He then charged, "The leaders of many of these groups consciously foster an unhealthy form of dependency, spiritually and otherwise, focusing on themes of submission and obedience to those in authority."

He then observed,

The so-called shepherding movement exemplifies how well-intentioned Christian leaders can bring disunity to the body of Christ and unanticipated bondage to the individual believers. It is a demonstration of how a perfectly biblical concept like authority can go awry

The religious autocrat takes pleasure in requiring obedience and subordination. His style of leadership can be described as narcissistic. His message is so intertwined with his own personality (and his fear of being weak) that he easily concludes that anyone who disagrees with him-who is not loyal to him-is in consort with the Adversary. [17]