CROSSROADISM AND THE WORLDWIDE BOSTON HIERARCHY WEIGHED AND FOUND WANTING (c) 1985, 1988 Roy Davison, Postbox 47 B-3830 Wellen, Belgium CompuServe: 76111,646 Internet: 76111.646@CompuServe.Com The Scripture quotations in this publication are from The New King James Version. Copyright (c) 1979,1980,1982, Thomas Nelson Inc., Publishers. Introduction This material was presented in August of 1988 in a series of lectures held in Ghana and Togo, West Africa. Brethren there requested that I discuss what is known among churches of Christ as the Boston/Crossroads Movement. The doctrines and practices under discussion did not originate among churches of Christ. The Boston/Crossroads movement is merely a spin-off of a larger movement in the denominational world, based on a doctrine of discipleship which results in an authoritarian pyramid form of leadership. Historically, the hierarchical discipleship movement may be the most revolutionary religious development of the twentieth century. This dynamic movement is influencing denominations and religious bodies around the world. It is comparable to the Methodist Movement of the eighteenth century. Points in common are an emphasis on methodic routine in personal devotion, militant evangelistic zeal, authoritarian hierarchical organization, the forming of close-knit cells, and the direct involvement of all members in evangelism. Hierarchical discipleship is extremely versatile. It can be applied in virtually any church or evangelistic organization. Being based on private personal relationships, it can be introduced by stealth. Although the movement began among denominational churches, it has spread to churches of Christ in various forms. The Boston/Crossroads Movement is not the only form this movement takes in our brotherhood. Other brethren, not directly related to Boston, such as Alvin Jennings and Milton Jones, have advocated similar ideas. Some of the same errors are also being promoted through 'church growth' and 'soul winning' work-shops and seminars. The following questions will be discussed: A. Why does God allow false teachers in the church? B. What is the doctrinal foundation of this movement? C. How were these ideas introduced among churches of Christ? D. May we have a hierarchy? E. What are the basic fallacies of pyramid discipleship? F. How should we treat people in this movement? WHY DOES GOD ALLOW FALSE TEACHERS IN THE CHURCH? Jesus said many false prophets would arise and lead many astray (Matt. 24:11). He also told us how to recognize them. Here are some characteristics of false teachers mentioned in the New Testament. Matthew 7:15-23 They appear righteous outwardly but bear evil fruits. They say 'Lord, Lord' but do not do the will of God. They think their 'mighty works' in the name of Christ prove that they are acceptable to God, but in reality they are evildoers. Matthew 20:25-28 They lord it over others and exercise authority over them like the rulers of the Gentiles. Matthew 23:1-10 They bind heavy burdens, hard to bear, and lay them on men's shoulders. They do their deeds to be seen by men. They love being called Rabbi by men. They set themselves up as masters and fathers. Matthew 24:24 They try to deceive the elect. Romans 16:17,18 They cause divisions and offenses contrary to the doctrine which has been taught. They do not serve the Lord, but their own appetites. They use fair and flattering words to deceive the hearts of the simple-minded. 2 Corinthians 11:3,4,13-15 They preach another Jesus and have a different spirit. They preach a different gospel. They are deceitful workmen disguising themselves as apostles of Christ and as servants of righteousness. Galatians 1:6-9 They pervert the gospel of Christ and preach a gospel which is different than the original gospel. Galatians 2:3,4 They are false brethren who would take away our freedom and bring us into bondage. Colossians 2:4,8,16-22 They deceive people with persuasive words. They cheat people through philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the basic principles of the world. They try to bind the old law on Christians. They delight in false humility. They are puffed up by their carnal thinking. The regulations they make, according to commandments and doctrines of men, have an appearance of wisdom in promoting self-centred religion, false humility and neglect of the body, but actually are worthless. 2 Thessalonians 2:5-12 They use wicked deception. They do not love the truth. 1 Timothy 1:3-11 They teach a different doctrine. They desire to be teachers of the law without understanding either what they are saying or the things about which they make assertions. 1 Timothy 4:1-4 They are hypocritical liars whose consciences are seared. 1 Timothy 6:3-5 They teach things which do not agree with the sound words of our Lord Jesus Christ and the teaching which accords with godliness. They are puffed up with conceit. They are depraved in mind and destitute of the truth. 2 Timothy 4:3,4 They teach myths contrary to sound doctrine. Titus 1:10-14 They are insubordinate men, empty talkers, and deceivers. They teach myths and commands of men. Hebrews 13:9 They bring diverse and strange teachings. 2 Peter 3:16,17 They twist the Scriptures to their own destruction. 2 John 7-11 They are deceivers. They go ahead and do not abide in the doctrine of Christ. They bring a different doctrine. 3 John 9,10 They like to have the preeminence. They resist apostolic authority. Jude 3,4 They do not proclaim the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints. Paul wrote that false teachers would arise both from without and from within: "For I know this, that after my departure savage wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock. Also from among yourselves men will rise up, speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after themselves" (Acts 20:29,30). Peter gave the same warning: "But there were also false prophets among the people, even as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Lord who bought them, and bring on themselves swift destruction. And many will follow their destructive ways, because of whom the way of truth will be blasphemed. By covetousness they will exploit you with deceptive words" (2 Peter 2:1-3). Jesus said it would happen. Paul said it would happen. Peter said it would happen. So it shouldn't surprise us when it does! Actually, God uses false teachers to test us: "If there arises among you a prophet or a dreamer of dreams, and he gives you a sign or a wonder, and the sign or the wonder of which he spoke to you comes to pass, saying, 'Let us go after other gods which you have not known, and let us serve them,' you shall not listen to the words of that prophet or that dreamer of dreams, for the LORD your God is testing you to know whether you love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul" (Deut. 13:1-3). Do you really love God? If you don't, some false teacher will lead you astray. Do you love the truth? If you don't, God will send you a delusion that you might believe a lie (2 Thes. 2:11). People who love God are people who seek God and heed the Word of God rather than the word of man: "And when they say to you, 'Seek those who are mediums and wizards, who whisper and mutter,' should not a people seek their God? Should they seek the dead on behalf of the living? To the law and to the testimony! If they do not speak according to this word, it is because there is no light in them" (Isaiah 8:19,20). In the New Testament Peter gives the same charge: "If anyone speaks, let him speak as the oracles of God" (1 Peter 4:11). THESE TWO VERSES ARE EXTREMELY IMPORTANT. WRITE THEM DOWN (Isaiah 8:19,20; 1 Peter 4:11). WRITE THEM ON YOUR HEART. LET YOUR MOUTH BE GUIDED BY THEM. "If anyone speaks, let him speak as the oracles of God." "To the law and to the testimony! If they do not speak according to this word, it is because there is no light in them." Not only do these verses tell us to SPEAK according to the Word of God, but also to KEEP QUIET otherwise. This world is full of teachers who darken counsel by words without knowledge because there is no light in them. Listen carefully to the following quotation. A series of articles entitled 'Progressive Revelation' appeared in the bulletin of the 'Boston Church of Christ' from May 1st through June 5th, 1988. This is from Part II which was published on May 8th. I quote: "Any religious group which strongly emphasizes doctrinal accuracy runs a risk of losing perspective and losing God. Historically, the churches of Christ have been noted for such an emphasis. One of the mottos in the early Restoration Movement was, 'We speak where the Bible speaks and are silent where the Bible is silent.' If the Bible did not specifically authorize a given practice, it was viewed with suspicion. "This approach has led to a type of blind traditionalism because it has essentially ruled out the idea that God will progressively lead His church by granting new insights and applications. An insistence that we must have 'book, chapter and verse' for anything new has virtually guaranteed that we will have nothing new, even if the old is a failure. Without a strong conviction that God is ACTIVELY leading His people both individually and collectively, we are doomed to a stale, dying religion. "A better motto for disciples who are 'progressive' (into making progress) would be the following: 'Where the Bible speaks, we are silent; where the Bible is silent, we speak.' Thus, if God has specified something, we shut up and submit. But if He has not, then we have the freedom to discover the most effective way to carry out His principles. Success is of God. If He is truly leading us, we will not be unsuccessful. PERIOD!" End of quotation. Now what do you think of that? Where the Bible speaks, they are silent. Where the Bible is silent, they speak. I rather prefer Peter's motto: "If anyone speaks, let him speak as the oracles of God" (1 Peter 4:11). Or, as God said through Jeremiah: "He who has My word, let him speak My word faithfully" (Jeremiah 23:28). God's word is like a hammer that breaks the rock in pieces (Jer. 23:29). Let us put this movement under the hammer of God's word. If they do not speak according to this word, it is because there is no light in them. I wish to make clear that my main purpose is not to be AGAINST certain false teachers. My main purpose is to be FOR God and His Son, Jesus Christ. Because I am FOR the truth, however, I must be AGAINST error. Yet, it's not enough to be against some error. I know brethren who are strongly opposed to Crossroadism, who themselves do and teach things which are just as bad, if not worse! The world is full of false teachers and the church has its fair share. We must be able to recognize and avoid ALL of them. The only way we can do this is to really KNOW THE TRUTH. Search the Scriptures daily (Acts 17:11). Buy the truth and do not sell it (Proverbs 23:23). "Trust in the LORD with all your heart, and lean not on your own understanding" (Proverbs 3:5). I plead with you. Your eternal salvation depends upon it. Jesus tells us: "If you abide in My word, you are My disciples indeed. And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free" (John 8:31,32). If we don't 'strongly emphasize doctrinal accuracy' we cannot be disciples of Christ. PERIOD. We have already learned that false teachers are to be expected among us, that God allows this to test us to see if we love Him, and that false teachers can be recognized because they do not speak according to the Word of God. WHAT IS THE DOCTRINAL FOUNDATION OF THIS MOVEMENT? This movement is based on the thesis that Christ's master/disciple relationship with the twelve apostles is a pattern to be followed in making, training and leading disciples today. According to this doctrine, a true disciple of Christ will make other disciples who learn to follow Christ by following him in an authoritarian teacher/student relationship. This training includes teaching new disciples how to make other disciples, and how to train and lead them in the same way. A chain of these master/disciple relationships results in a pyramid. Fundamental Error of the Movement The fundamental error of the master/disciple movement is that Jesus TRAINING HIS APOSTLES is used as a pattern for MAKING DISCIPLES, whereas these are entirely different matters. Jesus made many disciples, not just twelve. In Luke 6:17 we read of "a crowd of His disciples." According to Luke 19:37 "the whole multitude of the disciples began to rejoice and praise God." From among His many disciples, Jesus chose twelve to commission and train as APOSTLES: "And when it was day, He called His disciples to Him; and from them He chose twelve, whom He also named apostles" (Luke 6:13). The apostles occupy a unique position in the foundation of the church (Eph. 2:20; Rev. 21:14). The example of their being chosen, trained and commissioned had no other equivalent in the first century and has no equivalent in the church today. What is a Disciple? A disciple is a learner and a follower of the teachings of a master. The word is used in various contexts in the New Testament. Not only Jesus, but also John the Baptist and the Pharisees had disciples (Mark 2:18). In a more restricted sense, the word is used as a designation for the twelve apostles (Matt. 10:1,2). To avoid misapplication one must determine from the context whether reference is being made to the twelve, or to Jesus' disciples in general. (For example, compare Matthew 19:23 with 19:28; Mark 6:35,45 with 6:7,30 and Mark 11:14 with 11:11.) Many of the doctrinal errors of the authoritarian discipleship movement result from a failure to observe this distinction. In Acts 6:1,2 the church is spoken of as the multitude of the disciples. At Antioch the disciples were for the first time called Christians (Acts 11:26). In other words, a Christian is a disciple of Christ. In a more general sense, some people are called disciples in Acts 19:1-3 when they knew only the baptism of John and had not yet been baptized in the name of Christ. Incorrect Definition Advocates of pyramid discipleship use an incorrect definition for the word 'disciple.' They define a disciple as a Christian who is trained through a subordinate relationship with another Christian. This unscriptural definition results from an incorrect concept of how one becomes a disciple of Christ. 'Disciple' as a Verb Most advocates of hierarchical discipleship like to use the word 'disciple' as a verb. When they speak of 'discipling someone to Christ' they don't refer to preaching the gospel so someone can become a disciple. They refer to a period of training under the leadership of one person. Kip McKean of the Boston Church of Christ believes that a Christian should 'get discipled' by some more mature Christian. In a lesson entitled: 'The Saints in the Kingdom of Light' presented in England at the 1984 'United Kingdom Missions Conference' of the Central London Church of Christ he indicated that it takes at least three years to disciple a Christian to Christ. He also said the following: "Get discipled by men. Most of you have discipling relationships. Some of you don't. You need to find them. It's Biblically commanded. How could you not have them? If you have them, get open. Like Moak (sp?) say, 'I'm just here to learn.' Get humble. Get submissive. Get loyal and learn. You've got great people to learn from." "And I make it clear with the people I'm discipleship partners with, that that's the purpose of our relationship. I verbally say that: 'I'm going to disciple you to Christ,' so the relationship is defined just like Jesus defined it when He said, 'Come follow me, and I'll make you fishers of men.' They know what relationship they're getting themselves into. And if Jesus had to say it, don't you think we have to say it? I think so." "You must have a discipling relationship with another man who is older in the Lord to be able to help you become a strong Christian." (These quotations are from a cassette recording distributed by the Crossroads Tape Ministry, Gainesville, Florida). This idea of discipling a Christian to Christ is foreign to the New Testament. In Greek there is a verb form of the word 'disciple' which is found four times in the New Testament (Matt. 13:52; 27:57; 28:19; Acts 14:21). In the first two passages it is intransitive and means to be or to become a disciple. In Matthew 28:19 and in Acts 14:21 the word is transitive and means to make disciples. On what do they base their definition of 'discipling' as one Christian shepherding another Christian to maturity? Sometimes an appeal is made to Ephesians 4:11-13 which teaches that a Christian is to grow to maturity in the body of Christ. But that process is not called 'discipling' and nothing is said about a master/disciple relationship. Another passage used is Luke 6:40. "A disciple is not above his teacher, but everyone who is perfectly trained will be like his teacher." Actually, this passage proves their definition to be incorrect. Must one be perfectly taught before he is 'discipled' to Christ? Is being perfectly taught something one can attain during a three-year crash course under some other disciple? Or is this a goal for a lifetime of learning from Christ? And WHO is the 'teacher' in this verse? Some other disciple or Christ? Their wrong definition changes the goal into the prerequisite. There are hundreds of disciples of Christ for whom I have great respect. But I have yet to meet one who is already 'fully taught.' Becoming fully taught to be like Christ is the goal of discipleship, not the prerequisite. How Does One Become a Disciple of Christ? People became disciples of John the Baptist and of Christ during His earthly ministry by repenting and being baptized. At that time the message of both was: "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand!" (Matt. 3:2; 4:17). They who refused to be baptized "rejected the counsel of God" (Luke 7:30). Jesus left Judea when the Pharisees heard that He "made and baptized more disciples than John" (John 4:1). Before returning to the Father He commanded His followers: "Go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature. He who believes and is baptized will be saved" (Mark 16:15,16). In the wording of Matthew 28:19,20 they were told: "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you." It has been argued that since 'make disciples' (second person plural aorist imperative active) is the main verb of the sentence and 'going,' 'baptizing' and 'teaching' are participles, discipling includes both baptizing and teaching to observe all things. Whom are we to disciple? All the nations. Nations (accusative) is the direct object of the verb 'disciple.' If 'disciple' as a verb means what advocates of authoritarian discipleship claim, is it possible to disciple a nation? Of course not. In most versions this verb is correctly translated 'to make disciples of.' Then it makes sense. 'Make disciples of all the nations.' That is possible. Whom are we to baptize and teach to observe all things? Is it possible to baptize a nation? Greek pronouns usually agree in gender with their antecedent. 'Nations' is neuter; 'them' in verses 19 and 20 is masculine. It is to be understood -- as is stated in Mark -- that only those who believe are to be baptized. "He who believes and is baptized will be saved" (Mark 16:16). And whom are you going to teach to observe all things? One who doesn't believe? One who refuses to be baptized? Or one who has believed, has been baptized, and has been made a disciple? You are not going to make much progress teaching someone to observe all things until AFTER he has become a disciple! Disciples ARE to be taught to observe all that their Master has commanded. They ARE to grow to maturity in Christ. But this is not called 'discipling' in the New Testament. And the above passages certainly say nothing about becoming the disciple of someone OTHER THAN CHRIST. The way to make disciples is to preach the gospel. "When they had preached the gospel to that city and made many disciples, they returned to Lystra, Iconium and Antioch, strengthening the souls of the disciples" (Acts 14:21,22). A subordinate relationship with some other disciple is not required in 'making disciples' or 'discipling' (the verb form is used in this passage). "And the word of God spread, and the number of the disciples multiplied greatly in Jerusalem, and a great many of the priests were obedient to the faith" (Acts 6:7). When someone believes the gospel and is obedient to the faith by repenting and being baptized he becomes a disciple of Christ (Mark 16:16; Matt. 28:19; Acts 2:38; 6:7). What were the results of Peter's sermon on Pentecost? "Then those who gladly received his word were baptized; and that day about three thousand souls were added to them" (Acts 2:41). In the New Testament, people became disciples by being obedient to the faith, not by being trained in a subordinate relationship with some other disciple. Disciples were called Christians (Acts 11:26). One becomes a disciple of Christ in exactly the same way one becomes a Christian. As a disciple (learner) he will continue to grow and become more like Christ (Eph. 4:11-16). According to the hierarchical discipleship movement one becomes a disciple through authoritarian training under some more mature disciple. According to the Scriptures one becomes a disciple by being baptized into Christ. As a disciple, he grows to maturity in the body of Christ. One Error Leads to Another The fundamental error made by advocates of pyramid discipleship is to use the example of Christ training His APOSTLES as a pattern for MAKING DISCIPLES, whereas these are different matters entirely. This results not only in a wrong idea as to how one becomes a disciple, but also in an incorrect definition of a disciple. Other errors branch out from these roots. May Christians Have Disciples? May we follow Christ's example and train others by means of a teacher/disciple relationship patterned after the relationship Jesus had with His apostles? We may not follow Christ's example in everything. Christ is the Head of the church. May we follow His example in this? (The Pope does!) Adventists say we should follow Christ's example and keep the Sabbath. Neither may we follow the example of the apostles in everything. They imparted the Holy Spirit by the laying-on of hands (Acts 8:18). May we follow this example? (Catholic bishops and Pentecostals do!) May we follow Christ's example and teach others the same way He taught His apostles? No, Jesus has EXPRESSLY FORBIDDEN IT. "But you, do not be called, 'Rabbi'; for One is your Teacher, the Christ, and you are all brethren. Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven. And do not be called teachers, for One is your Teacher, the Christ" (Matt. 23:8-10). Both Jesus and John the Baptist were called Rabbi by their disciples (John 9:2; 3:26). A Rabbi was a teacher who had a master/disciple relationship with his students. According to the usual practice, disciples might eventually become Rabbis themselves and have disciples of their own. Jesus tells His disciples, however, that they are not to be called Rabbi. They would always remain disciples. He is the only Rabbi and His disciples are all brethren. When Jesus says we have but ONE teacher, it is the same word used in other places to describe Christian teachers (Acts 13:1; 1 Cor. 12:28-30; Eph. 4:11-16). What is the difference between what is allowed and what is not allowed? The word 'Rabbi' qualifies the meaning of the word 'teacher' in Matthew 23:8. We may have teachers in the church, but not Rabbis. In other words, Christian teachers may not have disciples. WHAT JESUS FORBIDS IS AN ORGANIZATIONAL TEACHER/STUDENT RELATIONSHIP AMONG HIS FOLLOWERS. And this is exactly what is advocated in the authoritarian discipleship movement! Jesus is our only Master Teacher. Teachers in the church may not have an organizational position ABOVE the ones they teach. We are all brethren. The word used in Matthew 23:10 for 'teachers' (also translated 'masters' or 'leaders') is not the usual word for 'teacher,' 'master' or 'leader' but is a word which is found only in this verse. It means a 'guide teacher.' Members of the Orthodox Church are encouraged to find a 'spiritual director' to help them grow. The concept is similar. Christ, however, has provided evangelists, pastors and teachers to build up the body (Eph. 4:11). We are not to accept one certain person as our 'guide teacher' or 'spiritual director' to help us grow. Christ is our spiritual director, no one else! We may have teachers in the church, but not Rabbis or spiritual directors. Teacher/disciple relationships have been forbidden by Christ. May We Call a Brother 'My Disciple'? It is common in the authoritarian discipleship movement for one person to refer to those he is training as 'my disciples.' Kip McKean stated at the 1984 'United Kingdom Missions Conference' in London: "You must fall in love with your disciple, that you are discipling to Christ." Jesus refers to His followers as 'My disciples.' In the New Testament no Christian ever calls another Christian 'my disciple.' With reference to Paul we read in Acts 9:25, "Then the disciples took him by night and let him down through the wall in a large basket." One finds 'his disciples' instead of 'the disciples' in many modern translations. These versions are based on certain manuscripts from the 4th and 5th centuries which differ greatly from the majority of manuscripts. Not only in the Received Text, but also in the ancient translations (Vulgate, Syriac, Coptic, Ethiopic and Armenian) one finds 'the disciples.' It is beyond the scope of this lecture to discuss the relative merits of manuscripts. We might ask however: Is it safe to base a practice on a reading not found in most manuscripts? If 'his disciples' is correct, then this is the only place in the New Testament where the word 'disciple' is used to describe a relationship between two Christians. Even then we would have to bear in mind that Paul was an INSPIRED APOSTLE (Acts 22:15; 26:16-18; 1 Tim. 2:7; 2 Tim. 1:11). Because we continue in the apostles' doctrine (Acts 2:42) there is a limited sense in which we also might be called disciples of Paul. (See John 9:28 where the Jews refer to themselves as disciples of Moses.) Since we are NOT inspired apostles, however, even if Paul did have disciples, that would not authorize us to have disciples. As mentioned above, a common error of sectarians is to apply passages to themselves which refer to the exclusive office of Christ or His apostles. Paul warned against those who would try to make CHRIST'S disciples into THEIR disciples: "For I know this, that after my departure savage wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock. Also from among yourselves men will rise up, speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after themselves" (Acts 20:29,30). May One Christian Exalt Himself Above Another? Jesus said, "A disciple is not above his teacher, nor a servant above his master. It is enough for a disciple that he be like his teacher, and a servant like his master" (Matt. 10:24,25). According to Philippians 2:3 we are to be humble and to esteem others better than ourselves. If you call a fellow Christian 'my disciple' you are exalting yourself above your brother. If he is YOUR disciple then you are HIS TEACHER in a way which violates Matthew 23:8-10. Jesus also said, "It is enough for a disciple that he be like his teacher" (Matt. 10:25). Is it enough for you to be like some other Christian? Certainly not. That would be coming far short of being like Christ. We have but one Teacher and we are all brethren. When we make disciples, we are to make disciples of Christ, not disciples of men. The Meaning of 'My Son in the Faith' It is argued that the biblical expression 'my son in the faith' is equivalent to 'my disciple.' What Paul means when he refers to Timothy as 'my true son in the faith' (1 Tim. 1:2) is clarified in 1 Corinthians 4:15-17. "For though you might have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet you do not have many fathers; for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel. Therefore I urge you, imitate me. For this reason I have sent Timothy to you, who is my beloved and faithful son in the Lord, who will remind you of my ways in Christ, as I teach everywhere in every church." (See also Philemon 10 where Paul speaks of Onesimus as his son, begotten during his imprisonment.) The Corinthians were Paul's children in the faith because he had begotten them through his PREACHING OF THE GOSPEL. Others had helped them grow after they became Christians. They had MANY INSTRUCTORS (not just one). Paul's expression 'son in the Lord' does not involve a Rabbi/disciple relationship. When someone responds to our preaching and becomes a child of God we are in a sense that person's "father" in the faith and he is our "child." It is also true that those who become Christians learn much by imitating the faith of their teachers. But nothing indicates that a Christian is the disciple of the one who taught him. These passages must be understood in the light of the command of Christ: "But you, do not be called, 'Rabbi'; for One is your Teacher, the Christ, and you are all brethren. Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven" (Matt. 23:8,9). What then is the difference between calling someone 'my son in the faith' and calling him 'my disciple'? Simply this: The first expression, if understood correctly, is Biblical and the second is not. I say 'if understood correctly' because one could easily use these Biblical words with a meaning different than Paul's meaning. In the Catholic and the Orthodox Church this passage is quoted to justify calling a priest 'Father'! If you 'beget' someone by sowing the seed of the gospel (the Word of God) in his heart then he is your child in the faith. But that does not make you his master teacher. If he became YOUR disciple, something was sown other than the Word of God. The Word of God produces disciples of Christ. Paul and Timothy Some have argued that the training of Christians in a teacher/disciple relationship is no different than the situation where young evangelists work with more experienced preachers as Timothy and others worked with Paul. There is a great difference, however, between being the disciple of someone and working with someone. Timothy was already a disciple and was "well spoken of by the brethren" before Paul invited him to accompany him (Acts 16:1-3). Paul's purpose was NOT to 'disciple him to Christ.' He refers to Timothy as his fellow worker (Rom. 16:21) and his helper (Acts 19:22). He also calls him "our brother and minister of God, and our fellow labourer in the gospel of Christ" (1 Thes. 3:2). Timothy was Paul's fellow worker, not his disciple. Paul uses similar terms for others who accompanied him. He calls Titus his partner and fellow worker (2 Cor. 8:23). He refers to Philemon (whom he had taught the gospel) as his fellow labourer (Philemon 1). Clement, Aristarchus, John Mark, Justus, Demas, and Luke are all called fellow workers (Phil. 4:3; Col. 4:10,11; Philemon 24). A close personal tie developed between Paul and Timothy during their many years of service together. Of him Paul wrote: "You know his proven character, that as a son with his father he served with me in the gospel" (Phil. 2:22). This resulted from their personal association, not from a hierarchical form of leadership. For eight years I had young men working with me in Belgium. We were fellow workers and fellow disciples of Christ. Because they were just learning Dutch and were inexperienced they assisted with my program of work. But they were not my disciples. If a master/disciple relationship developed between an experienced preacher and a young evangelist, that would be wrong. Some have also tried to justify a teacher/disciple relationship by the example of Paul's letters to Timothy and Titus. But these are inspired letters from an apostle! Expressions of Paul's apostolic authority cannot serve as examples for US to follow! Was Paul a Disciple of Barnabas? In an attempt to fabricate a hierarchical chain of discipleship in the New Testament, many writers in this movement state that Paul was a disciple of Barnabas. This has no Biblical basis whatever. Paul was NOT a disciple of Barnabas. The passages which tell of Paul's associations with Barnabas do not indicate that there was a master/disciple relationship between them. In the early years of Paul's ministry he was with Barnabas no more than two weeks! (See Galatians 1:11-24 and Acts 9:26-30.) What Paul writes in the first two chapters of Galatians indicates that he was a disciple of Christ and of no one else! Who is Your Spiritual Father? "You are all brethren. Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven" (Matt. 23:8,9). In London, Kip McKean spoke about 'spiritual fathers.' "Yes, we need to be brothers. But sometimes we're afraid of adopting the pattern of the Bible and being a father in the gospel to someone, because being a father is so much responsibility." "You know, I think that one of the things that I saw falling short as an earthly parent that I see falling short with a lot of brothers as spiritual fathers is that they don't urge their brothers. There's not a hard-line discipline. And you can be buddy-buddy all you want, but being buddy-buddy doesn't change people's lives. When you lay it out, when you're hard-line, then things change." "And when that man, that father in the faith, is hard-line it makes a difference in their lives." (Cassette recording: 'Saints in the Kingdom of Light.') In this lesson Kip McKean teaches that each Christian should have a more mature brother as his spiritual father to disciple him to Christ using hard-line discipline. Can we be true disciples of Christ while accepting someone other than God as our spiritual father and someone other than Christ as our teacher? Certainly not. We would be trampling under foot the words of our Lord: "But you, do not be called, 'Rabbi'; for One is your Teacher, the Christ, and you are all brethren. Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven" (Matt. 23:8,9). May We Be Followers of Men? Although not affiliated with Boston, Milton Jones wrote a book entitled 'Discipling: the Multiplying Ministry' (1982, Star Bible & Tract Corp., Ft. Worth, Texas) which advocates these same ideas. In it he complains that most Christians today would be hesitant to say, 'Be followers of me.' He admits that some would even consider such to be blasphemy (Page 34). It sounds like blasphemy to me. In an attempt to justify his statement he quotes two verses in which Paul says, "Imitate me, just as I also imitate Christ" (1 Cor. 11:1; 4:16). He also quotes from Hebrews where it is stated that we are to imitate the faith of our leaders (Heb. 13:7). I try to imitate the faith of fellow Christians. I think of J.C.Bailey (who first went to India to preach when he was 59 and who after almost 30 years is still doing what he can) as one who has a great faith worthy of imitation. But we may not be disciples of J.C.Bailey! That is a completely different matter. Following men has been the cause of apostacy down through the ages. Man-Made Rules and Regulations In the authoritarian discipleship movement rules and regulations are enforced which admittedly are not found in the Scriptures. It is argued that extra-Biblical rules and regulations are necessary to keep inexperienced Christians from going astray. Robert Nelson in his book 'Understanding the Crossroads Controversy' (1981, Robert Nelson, Gainesville, Florida) gives these man-made rules the strange name of 'Bible principle rules' (page 84). In the appendix he compares them to the rules and regulations of Christian colleges (Ap I-1). In so doing he reveals the error of his thinking. A Christian college is a human institution and as such may have human regulations. No one is obligated to attend a certain school. If he doesn't like its regulations, he may chose a school with rules more to his liking. The church of Christ, however, is a divine institution and no one but God may make rules for its members. The question is not whether certain rules are good or bad, but whether men have the right to make rules for God's church. One of the first doctrinal problems in the church was an attempt by Jewish false teachers to bind things which God had not bound. The saints at Colossae had allowed false teachers who used "philosophy and empty deceit, according to the tradition of men, according to the basic principles of the world, and not according to Christ" (Col. 2:8) to persuade them to follow man-made rules and regulations. Paul rebuked them: "If you died with Christ from the basic principles of the world, why, as though living in the world, do you subject yourselves to regulations -- 'Do not touch, do not taste, do not handle,' which all concern things which perish with the using -- according to the commandments and doctrines of men? These things indeed have an appearance of wisdom in self-imposed religion, false humility, and neglect of the body, but are of no value against the indulgence of the flesh" (Col. 2:20-23). Human rules and regulations may have an APPEARANCE OF WISDOM, but actually they are worthless. They are not an expression of spirituality, but of worldliness! This form of worldliness has been a popular heresy in every age. The world is run on the basis of human authority and outward regulations. It HAS to be, because an outward rule is the only thing men can ENFORCE. But the kingdom of God is different. It is not based on law enforcement. The New Covenant is written on the heart. I recently had the privilege of baptizing a man who left the Jehovah's Witnesses 12 years ago. He said he knew something was wrong with them because he didn't have the liberty Jesus promised those who know the truth. Christian leaders violate the liberty of Christ when they impose man- make regulations on the flock, rather than teaching them to observe the things which CHRIST has commanded. A rule-maker always tries to justify his little regulations on the basis of the principles they are SUPPOSED to advance. Bible study and prayer are necessary for growth in Christ. Instead of teaching and exhorting the brethren to study the Word and to pray without ceasing, the rule-maker comes up with a neat little package called 'quiet time.' Someone who has had his 'quite time' every day can feel really religious. But shame on you if you missed a couple of days this week. The sons of God are treated like children in a kindergarten who are told to lay their heads on their desks for five minutes. Instead of encouraging fellowship, the rule-maker comes up with "brother's keepers." Neo-methodism is extremely influential in current religious thought, no doubt as a reaction to indifference. When you beg people to do what is right and they won't listen, it is tempting to try to MAKE them do what is right. This tendency is affecting the church adversely, not only in the Crossroads/Boston apostacy, but also in the name of Mission Methods, Church Growth Methods, Church Organization Methods and Devotional Methods. Methodism always goes hand in hand with authoritarianism. When you start making rules, someone must ENFORCE them. Otherwise they don't work. This approach appeals to worldly people because it makes them feel so righteous and it gets fast visible (though superficial) results. Also, interestingly enough, it is especially appealing to young intellectuals. John Wesley's methodistic movement started as a devotional group at Oxford. Their purpose in meeting was to deepen their spiritual life by prayer and study of the Scriptures. They were first called 'methodists' by others because they were unusually precise and 'methodic' in their religious observances. Sound familiar? In the hierarchical organization Wesley set up, he was a real tyrant. When one of their groups in Glasgow decided to be led by a "Session" (a Presbyterian term referring to leadership by a group composed of the elders and the preacher), Wesley wrote the following letter to his evangelist in charge: "Cork, May 10, 1789. My Dear Brother, --'Sessions'! 'elders'! We Methodists have no such custom, neither any of the Churches of God that are under our care. I require you, Jonathan Crowther, immediately to dissolve that session (so called) at Glasgow. Discharge them from meeting any more. And if they will leave the Society, let them leave it. We acknowledge only preachers, stewards, and leaders among us, over which the assistant in each circuit presides. You ought to have kept to the Methodist plan from the beginning. Who had my authority to vary from it? If the people of Glasgow, or any other place, are weary of us, we will leave them to themselves. But we are willing to be still their servants, for Christ's sake, according to our own discipline, but no other. John Wesley." (This quotation is from a METHODIST book: "Church Organisations" James H. Rigg, Third Edition, Publ. Charles H. Kelly, London, 1897, page 261). Sound familiar? And the Methodists really grew! Wow! What success! One preacher, who is not in the Boston/Crossroads movement, said he had become tired of pleading with people to do what they are obligated to do. He suggested an authoritarian approach of just telling people what to do. Especially in times of apathy, it is tempting to try to MAKE people do what is right, but that is not God's way. Jesus is not a door-crasher. "Behold, I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears My voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and dine with him, and he with Me" (Rev. 3:20). To whom did Jesus say that? To Christians whom he had just called to repentance: "As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten. Therefore be zealous and repent" (Rev. 3:19). Even though we do sometimes get tired, we must keep on pleading with people, beseeching them to do what is right, exhorting them. But let us never rob them of their responsibility by coercing them. Jeremiah said to Zedekiah: "Please, obey the voice of the LORD which I speak to you. So it shall be well with you, and your soul shall live" (Jer. 38:20). A beautiful word which is used many times in the N.T. is PARAKALEO which can mean variously: exhort, beseech, plead, beg, encourage, comfort. Examine the following passages in which it is used: Luke 3:18; Acts 2:40; 11:23; 14:22; 15:32; Rom. 12:1,8; 15:30; 16:17; 1 Cor. 1:10; 4:13,16; 14:31; 16:15; 2 Cor. 2:8; 5:20; 6:1; 10:1; Eph. 4:1; Phil. 4:2; 1 Thes. 2:11,12; 4:1,10; 5:14; 2 Thes. 3:12; 1 Tim. 2:1; 5:1; 6:2; 2 Tim. 4:2; Titus 1:9; 2:6,15; Philemon 9,10; Heb. 3:13; 10:25; 13:19,22; 1 Peter 2:11; 5:1,12; Jude 3. See also Gal. 4:12 and 2 John 5 where similar words are used (beg and request). We should not try to force man-made rites and regulations on others, nor should we allow others to bind them on us. Submission In the hierarchical discipleship movement much emphasis is placed on submission and loyalty to the 'discipler' who is above one. We are indeed told to submit to our leaders (1 Cor. 16:16; Heb. 13:17; 1 Peter 5:5). Wives are also to submit to their husbands. But this may not be twisted into: Elders, boss the flock! Husbands, boss your wives! I don't know about your wife, but mine -- although she does a fairly good job of being submissive -- will not be bossed! Sometimes you can make people do things, but that is not submission. An example of the authoritarian approach was given by the preacher mentioned above. He was pleased that one of their elders had announced on Sunday morning: "You are expected to be here tonight and you are expected to have your sheets filled in." Before I explain what is wrong with this, let me give a good example in comparison. I recently saw the following in a bulletin: "Tonight our brother will be bringing a lesson to us at the 6.30 hour. Your shepherds want to provide 'food for thought' for the spiritual strength you will need for the coming week, so don't neglect the opportunity for your nourishment." Isn't that beautiful? A command is given. One may give a command IF IT IS BACKED BY THE WORD OF GOD, and this one is (Heb. 10:25). Contrary to what some believe, it is not necessarily wrong to be absent from a second meeting on the Lord's day ... unless it is because of NEGLECT, unless one is "forsaking the assembling of ourselves together." To say to a whole congregation: "You are expected to be here this evening" is wrong because there may be people present whom God DOES NOT EXPECT to be there. It is presumptuous for elders to expect something God does not expect. The Lord may have a task for some that evening which is more important than being at the meeting. Would that be "forsaking the assembly"? Remember the widow's mite? There may be some who because of age or infirmity show much more dedication to God by coming ONCE each week, than someone else who is in good health shows by being there every time the door is open. Would they necessarily be "forsaking the assembly" if they stayed home? What about a couple who must travel a great distance to attend services? Would they be "forsaking the assembly" if they studied the Scriptures and praised God in their own home on Sunday night? There are many, many things about our service to God which can only be decided by ourselves, and we shall each have to be responsible for our decisions on the last day. This elder was being presumptuous, self-willed and unjust. He was trying to lord it over the flock. If that is his customary behaviour, he is not qualified to be an elder (Titus 1:7,8). The second part of his command was: "And you are expected to have your sheets filled in." That is about as childish as one can get. A commandment of man is being forced upon the people of God. It seems to be one of the current fads in the U.S. to have question sheets to fill in. We were given lots of sheets to fill in on our last trip to America. Most were of such a nature that I am SURE God didn't mind at all when we didn't fill them in! They were often passed out at what was called a 'Bible study.' Usually, one could get along quite well without a Bible. Once when my parents complained that there had not been a single verse from the Bible read during a 'Bible study,' they heard the reply: "Oh, but you were five minutes late. You missed the Bible verse!" But let's assume that some question sheets have been prepared which are excellent means of increasing ones knowledge of Christ and His word. Do the elders have a right to 'expect' that everyone fill them in? To offer them as a help, even to encourage brethren to use them, would be fine, but to 'expect' that everyone fill them in is binding something which God has not bound. When someone does not speak according to the word of God it is because there is no light in him. Man-made rules and regulations are an expression of worldliness. Cross-Examination and Coercion Cross-examination is used as a means of 'training' Christians in the authoritarian discipleship movement. Members are encouraged to have so-called 'spiritual' discussions after services asking each other questions such as: "Did you read your Bible and have quiet time every day this week? Did you invite someone to Bible study every day?" Once a week, in a private prayer session with some more 'mature' disciple, the cross-examination is extended to the area of specific sins: "Did you commit sin A, B, C or D this week?" Is this according to Scripture? Paul wrote: "Examine yourselves as to whether you are in the faith. Prove yourselves. Do you not know yourselves, that Jesus Christ is in you? -- unless indeed you are disqualified" (2 Cor. 13:5). A slip of paper was given to me many years ago by a former Jehovah's Witness I baptized. It is the sheet all Jehovah's Witnesses must hand in each week showing how much literature they sold, how many Bible studies they conducted, and the number of hours they 'witnessed.' A sister who was formerly a J.W. told me she wrote across her sheet once: "Did Paul have to do this?" The Jehovah's Witnesses deny they coerce their members, claiming the report is only for planning. It is obvious, however, that it places them under compulsion to work an 'acceptable' number of hours. Instead of 'examining themselves' they are being coerced by their leaders. The use of compulsion to get Christians to do even something good is contrary to the doctrine of Christ. Christians are to be taught and admonished to do what is right, but they are never to be coerced. No compulsion is to be used, for example, with regard to giving: "So let each one give as he purposes in his heart, not grudgingly or of necessity; for God loves a cheerful giver" (2 Cor. 9:7). At a Catholic mass I once attended the priest walked up and down every row looking each person straight in the eye as he passed the collection basket! Most, of course, felt compelled to contribute. I smiled and said: "No thank you." I have also heard of elders in the church who violated this principle. They visited Christians in their homes and intimidated them by asking how much they were giving. They claimed they had a right to know. In some cases they even told people how much to give! Paul said 'Examine yourselves' not 'Cross-examine each other.' He told the Corinthians: "With me it is a very small thing that I should be judged by you or by a human court. ... He who judges me is the Lord" (1 Cor. 4:3,4). The Greek word for 'judge' in this verse means to 'examine' as in a court of law. Paul used the same word two chapters earlier when he wrote: "He who is spiritual judges all things, yet he himself is [rightly] judged by no one" (1 Cor. 2:15). The principle of self-examination also applies to the Lord's supper: "Let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread and drink of that cup" (1 Cor. 11:28). Paul wrote to Philemon about Onesimus, his run-away slave, whom Paul had taught the gospel: "whom I wished to keep with me, that on your behalf he might minister to me in my chains for the gospel. But without your consent I wanted to do nothing, that your good deed might not be by compulsion, as it were, but voluntary" (Philemon 13,14). Christians are to serve voluntarily. Compulsion robs them of the opportunity. The elders of one congregation which had been influenced by the Boston/Crossroads movement told a couple who lived more than a hour's drive away from the meeting place that they would be disfellowshipped if they didn't attend certain mid-week meetings regularly. We are told to confess our sins to one another and to pray for one another (James 5:16). We are not told to cross-examine one another! A cross- examination, whether by a priest in a confessional, or by some presumptuous 'more mature' disciple, is a slap in the face of Christ. "Who are you to judge another's servant? To his own master he stands or falls. Indeed, he will be made to stand, for God is able to make him stand" (Rom. 14:4). Does this mean that we may never reprimand a brother for sin? Certainly not. There is a great difference, however, between helping a brother who has sinned, and cross-examining a brother! Moreover, not all Christians are qualified: "Brethren, if a man is overtaken in any trespass, you who are spiritual restore such a one in a spirit of gentleness, considering yourself lest you also be tempted. Bear one another's burdens, and so fulfill the law of Christ. For if anyone thinks himself to be something, when he is nothing, he deceives himself. But let each one examine his own work, and then he will have rejoicing in himself alone, and not in another. For each one shall bear his own load" (Gal. 6:1- 5). Coercion is common in politics and business. False religions also use compulsion effectively to manipulate their members. Followers of Christ, however, do not coerce one another. They obey Christ: "You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and those who are great exercise authority over them. Yet it shall not be so among you" (Matt. 20:25,26). "Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty" (2 Cor. 3:17). We may not misuse our liberty as a cloak for evil (Gal. 5:13; 1 Peter 2:16). But neither may we submit to someone who would bring us into bondage: "But this occurred because of false brethren secretly brought in (who came in by stealth to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage), to whom we did not yield submission even for an hour, that the truth of the gospel might continue with you" (Gal. 2:4,5). "You were bought at a price; do not become slaves of men" (1 Cor. 7:23). How Does a Disciple Bear Fruit? In the authoritarian discipleship movement people are accused of being unfruitful unless they personally bring others to Christ. What does the Bible teach? A follower of Christ MUST bear fruit. "By this My Father is glorified, that you bear much fruit; so you will be My disciples" (John 15:8). John the Baptist emphasized this: "Bear fruits worthy of repentance ... every tree which does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire" (Luke 3:8,9). When the people asked: "What shall we do then?" he told them to share their abundance with the needy (Luke 3:10,11). Jesus gave a similar warning: "Every branch in Me that does not bear fruit He takes away" (John 15:2). He also taught the importance of bearing fruit in the parables of the unfruitful fig tree (Luke 13:6-9) and of the sower (Matt. 13:18-23). According to the Scriptures, bearing fruit includes all that one does to the glory of God. He who has the wisdom of God is full of good fruits (James 3:17,18; Prov. 8:1,19). Paul prayed that the Philippians might be "filled with the fruits of righteousness which are by Jesus Christ, to the glory and praise of God" (Phil. 1:11). The branches can only bear fruit when they remain in the Vine (John 15:4,5). Paul prayed that the Colossians might lead a life "worthy of the Lord, fully pleasing Him, being fruitful in every good work and increasing in the knowledge of God" (Col. 1:10). Through every good work a disciple bears fruit to the glory of God. Paul told Titus: "And let our people also learn to maintain good works, to meet urgent needs, that they may not be unfruitful" (Titus 3:14). A disciple bears fruit by doing good deeds and helping those in need. In Romans 15:26-28 Paul refers to the gifts he is taking to the poor saints in Jerusalem as fruit from the believers in Macedonia and Achaia. Disciples also bear fruit when they support an evangelist. Paul says of the help he received from Philippi: "Not that I seek the gift, but I seek the fruit that abounds to your account" (Phil. 4:17). We bear fruit when we worship God: "Therefore by Him let us continually offer the sacrifice of praise to God, that is, the fruit of our lips giving thanks to His name" (Heb. 13:15). When we walk by the Spirit the fruit of the Spirit will be evident in our lives: love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control (Gal. 5:16,22,23). A much narrower definition for bearing fruit is given by advocates of authoritarian discipleship. Jerry Jones, who was at Boston for a time but now has rejected many of their false teachings, says on page 52 of his book 'Discipleship in God's Eternal Purpose' (1984, Jerry Jones, Searcy, Arkansas) that disciples bear fruit by producing after their own kind (making more disciples). This definition for bearing fruit is not found in the New Testament. In John 15:5,8,16 Jesus says that a disciple MUST bear fruit, but in this context no definition is given. From other passages on the subject (those discussed above) we learn that we bear fruit in all that we do to the glory of God. I have not found a single passage where bearing fruit is directly related to evangelism. In John 4:36 we do read: "He who reaps receives wages, and gathers fruit for eternal life, that both he who sows and he who reaps may rejoice together." There is a difference, however, between BEARING fruit and GATHERING fruit. All disciples are to bear fruit (do good works to the glory of God). But not all disciples gather fruit because one sows and another reaps (John 4:37) but both rejoice together. As a group we are to preach the gospel to everyone on earth (Matt. 28:19,20; Mark 16:15,16). The church, however, is a body with many members. Not every member has the same function (Rom. 12:3-8). One brother may teach (verse 7), whereas another gives aid or does acts of mercy (verse 8). One member of the body is not to despise another because his function is different (1 Cor. 12:12-26). As Christians we are never told to reproduce 'after our own kind.' We sow the seed of the gospel and it produces disciples of Christ, not disciples of men. Each new branch (disciple) is joined directly to the Vine (Christ), not to some other disciple. Jesus said, "I am the vine, you are the branches" (John 15:5). In the pyramid discipleship movement the branches want to be vines and to have other branches growing out from themselves. Certainly we need reapers in the kingdom of God. But the reapers may not despise the sowers for they are entering into the labour of others (John 4:37,38). This false definition of bearing fruit is carried so far by some that a Christian who does not personally teach and convert others is not considered to be a true disciple of Christ. Milton Jones on page 25 of his book, 'Discipling: the Multiplying Ministry,' states correctly on the basis of John 15:8 that the proof of whether one is a disciple is if he bears fruit. But he then defines bearing fruit as evangelizing or winning people to Christ; a virtuous life is not sufficient if one does not also personally make disciples of others (page 26). On the basis of this false definition he asks his readers to examine themselves to see if they really are disciples of Christ. This definition of bearing fruit contains a double error. The first is that one is not a true disciple unless he personally teaches others, whereas not all Christians are teachers (Rom. 12:6-8; 1 Cor. 12:29; James 3:1). The second error is that evangelizing is equated with winning people to Christ. It is taught that a disciple bears fruit only when someone obeys the gospel, whereas an evangelist fulfills his responsibility when the message is proclaimed, whether it is accepted or rejected. God gives the increase; we only plant and water (1 Cor. 3:6,7). There is joy in reaping, but no virtue. The fruits of evangelism are borne by God, not by man. We only sow, water and gather the fruit. Each disciple should certainly do what he can (according to the abilities and opportunities God gives him) to spread the gospel of Christ. We need disciples who sow, water and gather fruit for eternal life. But our discipleship does not depend on the number of people who RESPOND. We make disciples by preaching the gospel (Matt. 28:19,20; Mark 16:15,16). In most cases our hearers (who in great numbers are willing to embrace error) reject truth. That does not mean that we are unfruitful. We bear fruit if we do good to the glory of God according to our ability and our function in the body of Christ. It is extremely damaging and discouraging to people whose capabilities suit them better for some OTHER work in the body of Christ, to present them with the FALSE teaching that every single Christian must personally bring other people to Christ to be acceptable to God. This is just like the J.W.s who force all their people to go from house-to-house. According to the passages already discussed, a Christian bears fruit in everything he does to the glory of God. Different members of the body have different functions (Rom. 12:3-8; 1 Cor. 12:12-30). This means that a disciple with God-given talents in other areas could bear MUCH fruit serving God faithfully according to his own abilities without ever personally converting ANYONE to Christ! Only One Congregation in Each City? Many advocates of authoritarian discipleship believe there should be only one 'church' in each 'metropolitan area.' This one church may be subdivided, however, into many different 'house churches.' Each of these house churches is to be led by a 'shepherd-type' elder, evangelist or teacher. Alvin Jennings, although not affiliated with Boston, is promoting his own version of the authoritarian discipleship movement. He has distributed several hundred thousand copies of a book entitled "3 R's of Urban Church Growth" (1981, Star Bible Publications, Inc., Ft. Worth, Texas). It was later republished under the title 'How Christianity Grows in the City.' I might mention that brother Wayne Coats (184 Hillview Rd., Mt. Juliet, Tennessee, USA-37122) has published an excellent rebuttal of this book. My quotations are from the original "3 R's" edition. On page 42 Jennings claims that according to the New Testament record, there never was a plurality of independent congregations within the same metropolis. On page 43 he argues that the appointment of a plurality of elders 'in every city' (Titus 1:5) seems equivalent to appointing elders 'in every church' (Acts 14:23). According to Acts 14:23 they appointed elders in every church. Whatever is meant by 'church' in this passage, EVERY CHURCH is to have its own elders. In Titus 1:5 Paul states that he left Titus on Crete to appoint elders in every city. The two statements are NOT equivalent. To appoint elders in every church is more specific. If Titus appointed elders separately in two churches in one city, that could also be described as appointing elders in that city. The harbour of Corinth was at Cenchreae, just seven miles away. Yet there was a church at Cenchreae, as well as at Corinth (Rom. 16:1). There was a plurality of churches in Rome. To get around this it is claimed that the one 'church of Rome' was subdivided into various 'house churches' which were actually segments of one congregation. There is no evidence for this in Scripture. The book of Romans is addressed "To all who are in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints" (Rom. 1:7). This is NOT the same as addressing the book to 'the church of Rome.' No place in the book of Romans (or elsewhere in the N.T.) is there mention of 'the church of Rome.' In the letter to the SAINTS at Rome, however, Paul mentions more than one church. He greets the church in the house of Prisca and Aquila (16:3-5) and also all the brethren who are with Asyncritus, Phlegon, Hermes, Patrobas, and Hermas (16:14) and also all the saints who are with Philologus, Julia, Nereus and his sister, and Olympas (16:15). The latter two references are less specific since the word 'church' is not used. But there is definite mention of the church in the house of Prisca and Aquila and it is obvious that not all the saints in Rome were members of that church. HOW WAS PYRAMID DISCIPLESHIP INTRODUCED AMONG CHURCHES OF CHRIST? Early advocates of authoritarian discipleship among churches of Christ recommended and circulated certain books which were written by denominational authors. One was Robert Coleman's "The Master Plan of Evangelism" published in 1963 and another was Juan Carlos Ortiz's "Call to Discipleship" published in 1975. Both books advocate authoritarian leadership and teach that relationships among Christians should be patterned after Christ's master/disciple relationship with His apostles. When this form of leadership was tried by various denominational groups they usually experienced fast numerical growth. Since this authoritarian system was found to work best among young people it became especially popular with university evangelistic organizations. It was in connection with campus evangelism that these ideas were introduced among churches of Christ. In the late 1960's a project among Christians known as 'Campus Evangelism' copied the approach of 'Campus Crusade,' a sectarian organization which practiced authoritarian discipleship. One of those involved in 'Campus Evangelism' was Chuck Lucas, who set up a system of authoritarian discipleship at Gainesville, Florida while working as campus minister with the Fourteenth Street congregation. After three years, in 1970, he was employed as evangelist, and when the church moved to a new building in 1973 the name was changed to the 'Crossroads Church of Christ.' The Crossroads congregation developed a training program to turn out campus ministers. These men found employment at congregations in university cities throughout the United States. Most churches hiring them were not informed about the authoritarian methods they were trained to use. These 'campus ministers' would infiltrate a congregation and build up a following, especially among the young people, while concealing certain aspects of their approach from the elders. Because of the incompatibility between a hierarchical system and Biblical leadership by elders, conflicts arose, and many churches were split. In some cases the Crossroads evangelist was allowed to take over and lead the congregation. This was done at Boston, for example, where pyramid discipleship was introduced by Kip McKean. With an active program of evangelism enforced by what McKean refers to as 'hard-line discipline' that congregation increased from 50 to 4000 members in nine years. Since Crossroads acquired such a bad name because of all the churches split by people they trained, Boston decided not to send trainees into existing congregations. Most denominations using this system are quite open about their hierarchical structure. Hierarchies are nothing new in the denominational world! Those who have introduced these ideas among churches of Christ, however, have been almost secretive about this aspect of their method, probably because they realized the idea would not be readily accepted. It is seldom mentioned in their public meetings and an attempt is made to hide the hierarchical nature of their organization behind innocent-sounding expressions and explanations. The master/disciple relationship was called a 'prayer partner relationship' at Crossroads. When one young lady was asked whether such relationships were scriptural, she replied: "What can be wrong with two Christians praying together?" This is a dodge because the relationship involves more than that. One partner is under the oversight of the other. Each member is encouraged to have one partner over him and if he converts others he will have several under him. This results in a pyramid. At Boston 'prayer partners' are called 'discipleship partners.' Kip McKean, in a lesson entitled: 'The Saints in the Kingdom of Light' presented at the 1984 'United Kingdom Missions Conference' at Central London, made the following statements: "You must have a discipling relationship with another man who is older in the Lord to be able to help you become a strong Christian." "Get discipled by men. Most of you have discipling relationships. Some of you don't. You need to find them. It's Biblically commanded. How could you not have them?" Can You Find a Women's Counselor in the Bible? One false doctrine leads to another. The closeness of the discipling relationship required that the partners be of the same sex. Evangelists headed the pyramids of men. The name is Biblical, even if the function is not. But who would head the pyramids of women? For this, the unscriptural office of "Women's Counselor" was created. Both name and function are foreign to the Scriptures. Some try to base this office on Paul's instructions that older women are to train younger women (Titus 2:3,4). This is amusing since the "Women's Counselors" are often very young women, their position not depending on age but on demonstrated proficiency in the hierarchical system. Paul's admonition is addressed to ALL older women, not to certain office-holders. In a recorded interview held in our home in Belgium in April of 1985 Douglas Arthur, evangelist for the Central London Church of Christ, made the following admission in response to my comment that I had never read about a Women's Counselor in the Bible: "Ok. There's not one, I don't think. If you find one let me know because, well, we'll definitely be thrilled. I don't know what else we're going to call them, deaconesses, maybe. ... I mean it's - - We want to be able to designate it some way, so we identify that, and that's what it is. I mean. It's not in the Bible." Levels of Leadership? At Boston various levels of leadership have been defined in the discipleship partner hierarchy. At the top locally is the Lead Evangelist. The city is subdivided into Sectors, each of which is under a Sector Evangelist. The Sectors are sub-divided into Zones led by Zone Evangelists. Each Zone is sub-divided into House Churches led by House-Church Leaders. Each House-Church Leader is over several Bible-Talk Leaders. At the top of this pyramid is the Lead Evangelist who also 'disciples' the elders. In the Boston bulletin of July 17, 1984 an attempt was made to justify this hierarchy by Jim Blough, one of the deacons. "The real value of the house church unit however, is found in a principle of leadership which was first introduced in the ministry of Moses, described in Exodus 18:13-26." After explaining the problem Moses had, he compares Moses to an evangelist: "The modern-day evangelist is expected to personally meet the needs of all of the members of his church, an impossible task, and everyone simply becomes 'worn out' as a result. Fortunately for Moses, his father-in-law had the wisdom to suggest the appointment of several levels of leaders - men over thousands, hundreds, fifties and tens - to help Moses meet the needs of the people more effectively. As the church here in Boston has grown over the last five years, it has repeatedly become necessary to appoint men to meet the needs of God's people; first over tens (Bible Talk leaders), then over fifties (House Church leaders), and over hundreds (Zone evangelists). We currently have only about 1,000 members, but as the need arises men will be appointed over thousands as well." This year the need arose. In the Boston bulletin of June 26, 1988 Kip McKean announced that another level had been added: "Therefore, taking the 'Jethro principle' a step farther, (10's - Bible talks; 50's - House Churches; 100's - Zones), we will now also be grouped in 'Sectors' (1,000's). Each Sector will begin with about five zones." Can You Find a Hierarchy in the New Testament? Obviously the Old Testament example of Moses appointing men over tens, fifties, hundreds and thousands does not authorize a similar organization for the New Testament church. There is no evidence that any congregation in the New Testament was ever organized in this fashion. Before the dispersion because of persecution (Acts 8:1) the church in Jerusalem had grown to well over 10,000 members -- about 5000 men, not counting women and children (Acts 4:4). Why do we not read about men over tens, fifties, hundreds and thousands in the book of Acts? Where were the Bible Talk Leaders, the House Church Leaders, the Zone Evangelists, the Sector Evangelists and the Women's Counselors? Who was the Lead Evangelist? May We Have a Hierarchy as an Expedient? It is argued that elders have the authority to organize a local congregation as they see fit and that this passage in Exodus serves as an example of an expedient form of organization. It is claimed that there must have been some kind of organization in Jerusalem to look after the needs of 10,000 people. This 'must have been' argument is the same one used by Catholics and J.W.'s to justify their hierarchies. In truth there was 'some kind of organization'! The question is: May we modify the organization God has prescribed? In the Belgium interview the Central London evangelists admitted that the 'Jethro argument' is not valid but they tried to justify their practice on the basis of expediency. When asked if they thought Boston's organization was scriptural, Douglas Arthur replied: "Yes, it's all right. ... It's just a functional way to organize a church of two thousand." He further explained that he did not consider it necessary to have a Biblical precedent for such an organization. He said: "We get so caught up sometimes -- I really think this -- we get so caught up sometimes in wanting every little specific tiny little detail to be, uh, to have a proof-text for it. I think when it comes down to it the amount of material that we have in the Scriptures on how to run churches -- uh -- we don't -- uh -- it's fairly small. ... We do a lot of things -- and I think anyone who's thinking will agree with this -- we do lots of things that we don't have Scriptural texts for." Is a hierarchical system of church government just a 'tiny little detail'? And does the New Testament really contain no pattern for church leadership? The organization of the church is defined in the New Testament. Christ is Head (Eph. 1:22). "He Himself gave some to be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, and some pastors and teachers" (Eph. 4:11). The church is built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets with Christ as Cornerstone (Eph. 2:20; Rev. 21:14). The responsibilities of evangelists, pastors and teachers are defined. Nowhere are they authorized to run churches as the heads of hierarchies or to appoint others to do so. No hierarchs are found in the New Testament church. No congregation is ruled by a Lead Evangelist. No Women's Counselor leads the women. No subordinate levels of leadership are found such as Sector Evangelists, Zone Evangelists, House- Church Leaders or Bible-Talk Leaders. The New Testament does authorize the appointment of people to do a certain work. In the Belgium interview Douglas Arthur stated: "It could be proposed that the apostles appointed people in Acts six over the widows." This shows where they go astray. Were the seven appointed to be OVER the widows? What do we read? "Therefore, brethren, seek out from among you seven men of good reputation, full of the Holy Spirit and wisdom, whom we may appoint over this business" (Acts 6:3). What were they appointed to do? Serve tables! They were not appointed to be OVER the widows. They were appointed to SERVE the widows. A congregation of any size can easily be led using only those offices and functions prescribed in the New Testament. The question is whether we are satisfied with God's way, or whether we think we are smarter than God. James Lloyd said in the Belgium interview: "It's to me unfortunate that people could be so upset about even a term 'levels of leadership.' That's exactly what's going to happen in any growing congregation of the Lord. There's levels of competence which means there's levels of leadership. ... I think that if any of your churches ... grew to 1500 in the next five years you would do something besides saying: We're all equal. We're just all one in the Lord and there's no one that's going to be any kind of a different leader than the other." We do read about varying degrees of competence in the New Testament: the five-talent man and the two-talent man, for instance. We also read about different functions in the church: evangelists, elders, deacons and teachers. The work of each is defined. But we do NOT read about levels of leadership. If so why does this system require NEW FUNCTIONS not found in the Scriptures? It IS scriptural for elders to lead the congregation. In the church there are also evangelists, deacons and teachers. But who, according to the New Testament, has a higher level of leadership, an evangelist or a deacon, a deacon or a teacher? The work of each is different, but there is a complete absence of any concept of rank. There are no levels of leadership except that elders oversee the flock. The difference in rank inherent in a hierarchy is forbidden by Christ. "When he was in the house He asked them, 'What was it you disputed among yourselves on the road?' But they kept silent, for on the road they had disputed among themselves who would be the greatest. And he sat down, called the twelve, and said to them, 'If anyone desires to be first, he shall be last of all and servant of all'" (Mark 9:33-35). Now, I realize that hierarchs never admit that this passage applies to them. They consider themselves to be the greatest servant of all because they are at the top! One of the titles of the Pope is 'The servant of the servants of God'! Jesus abolished rank when he said: "The last will be first and the first last" (Matt. 20:16; 19:30; Luke 13:30). "You are all brethren" (Matt. 23:8). The elders certainly are to provide Biblical leadership in the local congregation, but they do not have the right to violate the teachings of Christ by the establishment of a hierarchical government with different levels of leadership. A Worldwide Hierarchy? During 1987 the Boston Church of Christ expanded its hierarchy to include a worldwide network of 24 'Pillar Churches.' Amazingly enough, an attempt was made to justify this on the basis of the apostle Paul's relationship with Timothy and Titus! In the Boston bulletin of December 20, 1987 Kip McKean wrote: "The pattern in the first century was for each church to have as its local leadership - elders (Acts 14:23; Titus 1:5). However, these congregations were never to be isolated and separate from each other. (Autonomy is not even mentioned in the Bible.) Instead, from time to time evangelists were sent into the church to 'straighten out' (Titus 1:5) the church and to call each member back to the apostles' teachings and life style (1 Cor. 4:14-17). Therefore, the Boston Church will not be 'over' the San Diego Church, but Tom Brown will continue to disciple (give input and direction to) his Timothy, Bruce Williams. Bruce will disciple and further train the Elders (Titus 2:2), who direct the affairs of the church (1 Tim. 5:17)." Notice that McKean here defines the verb 'disciple' as to 'give input and direction to.' This shows how the system works. Tom Brown, one of the evangelists at BOSTON, was to give input and direction to his 'Timothy,' Bruce Williams, who is the Lead Evangelist of the Pillar Church in SAN DIEGO. Bruce Williams gives input and direction to the elders, who in turn direct the affairs of the church. This hierarchical influence extends on down to other congregations via the Pillar Churches. In the October 11, 1987 bulletin of the Chicago Church of Christ (a Pillar Church) Marty Fuqua wrote about the Central Church in Toronto, Canada: "This work was planted by the Boston church in 1986. It now is the largest and fastest growing congregation in all of Canada. Because of the long-standing relationship between Roger and Mark Mancini, the evangelist, the Boston leadership asked us to further disciple and service that work." The BOSTON leadership asked the CHICAGO leadership to 'disciple and service' the TORONTO work. A new wrinkle in this worldwide hierarchy was revealed in the Boston bulletin of June 26, 1988 which announced the appointment of Tom Brown as Lead Evangelist in Boston. Kip McKean has now become 'Missions Evangelist.' In explaining his new function McKean wrote: "God made it obvious that we should shift the emphasis of our ministry from Boston to a small number of lead couples and the key pillar churches they serve, thus following the pattern of Paul's role in the first century." Regarding his continuing relationship with the Boston Church he explains: "Though God's work will certainly call us to be away sometimes a few days, sometimes a few months, we will continue to live and make 'our home' in Boston. We look forward to continuing to disciple the Browns, the Elders and their wives and grow ever closer as friends. Pray for us. This church is truly the Jerusalem of God's modern day movement." Thus as Missions Evangelist Kip McKean will work with the 'lead couples' of the key Pillar Churches throughout the world. He will also 'disciple' the Lead Evangelist and elders of the Mother-Church at Boston. The development of this movement among churches of Christ during the last twenty years looks very much like a sped-up rerun of the first six centuries of the development of the Roman Catholic hierarchy! It took the Catholics 600 years to go from local leadership by elders to a universal shepherd over the church worldwide. The Crossroads/Boston movement has done this in just twenty years! Boston's power-grab has caused some to recognize the basic errors of the movement. Others -- although they refuse to submit to Boston -- still defend pyramid discipleship on a local level. MAY WE HAVE A HIERARCHY? A hierarchy results when several master/disciple relationships are chained together. A hierarchy is a ruling body organized into orders or ranks each subordinate to the one above it. This extremely effective method of government is used by armies and other organizations striving for a high degree of authoritarian control. Two things are inherent: rank and authority. A hierarchy can function only if each member is willing (or compelled) to submit to the one above him. As the centurion said to Christ, "For I also am a man under authority, having soldiers under me. And I say to this one, 'Go,' and he goes; and to another, 'Come,' and he comes; and to my servant, 'Do this,' and he does it" (Matt. 8:9). False religions often have hierarchical forms of government. We are familiar with the Roman Catholic hierarchy and similar hierarchies in other churches. In most cases the masses are under the hierarchy but not in it. Religious orders, secret societies and cults often include every member in their hierarchy. In Moon's Unification Church, for example, each member is supervised by an older 'brother' or 'sister.' An attempt is often made to justify a hierarchy by reference to Moses appointing men over thousands, hundreds, fifties and tens (Exodus 18:13-26). This argument is not valid because the church is different than Israel and we are under the New Covenant, rather than the Old. Christ's teachings prohibit any type of hierarchy. Contrary to the concept of religious rank prevalent among the Jews, Jesus told His disciples: "You are all brethren" (Matt. 23:8). When the disciples had been discussing who was greatest (Mark 9:33,34) -- no doubt on the assumption that His kingdom would be like worldly kingdoms with different levels of leadership -- Jesus told them: "If anyone desires to be first, he shall be last of all and servant of all" (Mark 9:35). It was difficult for them to comprehend this. James and John, shortly afterwards, requested the highest position in the kingdom, second only to Christ (Mark 10:35-37). How did Jesus reply? "You know that those who are considered rulers over the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great ones exercise authority over them. Yet it shall not be so among you; but whoever desires to become great among you shall be your servant" (Mark 10:42,43). There is no place for rank and hierarchical leadership in the church of Christ. Who Has Authority? Great men among Christians are those who serve. They may NOT exercise authority over their brethren. To do so would be to rob Christ of His authority. Jesus has all authority in heaven and on earth (Matt. 28:18). The apostles were inspired and led by the Holy Spirit to make known the gospel which allowed them to speak with the authority of Christ (2 Cor. 10:8; 1 Thes. 2:6). They had no personal authority. The only thing which one may do with 'all authority' is to declare the Word of God (Titus 2:15). Elders and evangelists may do only what they are commanded to do, they may not transgress the limits of the word of God. It has been argued that these levels of leadership are not unsimilar to the situation in many congregations where one brother serves as youth minister to work with the young people. There is a tremendous difference, however, between working WITH the young people and being OVER the young people. If a youth minister were appointed OVER the young people that would violate the teachings of Christ. The same restriction applies to evangelists. Biblically speaking, a man is an evangelist by definition when he does the work of an evangelist whether he is supported or whether he earns his own living, as Paul often did. Elders may support an evangelist so he can spend more time preaching. They do not, however, have the authority to require a man to complete an internship before he is recognized as an evangelist, nor do they have the right to appoint an evangelist to be OVER other Christians. Elders are not authorized to set up a hierarchical organization with different levels of leadership within their congregation. They violate the teaching of Christ if they appoint one Christian to exercise authority over another. And it is a blasphemous violation of the authority of Christ for one man to set himself up as shepherd of the church worldwide, whether he call himself the Pope, or the 'Missions Evangelist' who disciples the Lead Evangelists of the Key Pillar Churches throughout the world. Evangelistic Authority? The churches affiliated with Boston believe in what is called evangelistic authority. It is taught that until elders are appointed an evangelist has the authority of elders. Even after elders are appointed the Lead Evangelist makes decisions together with the elders. In the June 26, 1988 bulletin of the Boston Church Kip McKean says: "In turn the Elders and I have asked Tom Brown to become the lead evangelist for the Boston church." The Lead Evangelist not only makes decisions with the elders, he also 'disciples' the elders. When a team (including several evangelists) is sent by Boston to 'plant' a new church, one man is the 'Lead Evangelist.' Since this expression, like so many of their terms, is not found in the Bible we must learn its definition from the Boston bulletin (November 15, 1987): "Lead Evangelist - in a group of men serving as evangelists, the individual primarily responsible for teaching, preaching and leading the ministry (like Paul with Silas and Timothy - Acts 17:14-15)." In effect one man is head of the church. When a brother in Holland asked the leader of the team coming to Amsterdam why he did not plan to work with the existing congregation he said: "But would they do what I said?" The brother replied: "They'll do what the Bible says." In a recorded meeting at Wigan, England in March of 1985 Douglas Arthur and James Lloyd said they exercised authority over the Central London Church (which was without elders). They explained that they made all decisions unless they themselves decided that the congregation should be consulted. They would decide if other evangelists should be appointed. They would decide if others should be allowed to share in the leadership. According to this concept, an evangelist does not just preach the word. He exercises authority as a hierarch. This violates the Word of Christ. These so-called Evangelists lord it over the flock. The Ordination of Evangelists at Boston To be appointed as an evangelist in this movement, one must first work ones way up through the ranks of the pyramid. One young man who was an intern at Boston said he had to earn the various levels before he could be appointed as an evangelist. In the Belgium interview Douglas Arthur explained that this means that he must demonstrate his competence. Certainly evangelists should be competent. But where does the New Testament teach that one must demonstrate his competence by working his way up through various levels of leadership in a pyramid before he can be appointed as an evangelist? The 'training program' used in Boston to develop their Evangelists and Women's Counselors is wrong for the same reason the method used by many denominations to train and ordain ministers is wrong. To be ordained one must meet certain arbitrary and unbiblical criteria. The same applies to becoming an Evangelist or Women's Counselor at Boston. Jerry Jones -- who had been a preacher for years and had been head of the Bible Department at Harding University -- was suddenly no longer an evangelist when he went to Boston. He was only an 'intern' until the powers- that-be should decide that he was qualified to be an Evangelist. Fortunately, he later realized that their system of having one Christian exercise authority over another was wrong. In a letter I received from him in the spring of 1988, however, he still defended a few of their other unscriptural doctrines. We have no right to make appointments which God has not made, nor to change the nature and qualifications of the appointments God has made. Shepherds or Generals? How then do elders lead the congregation? Peter explains this in 1 Peter 5:1-5. "The elders who are among you I exhort, I who am a fellow elder and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that will be revealed: Shepherd the flock of God which is among you, serving as overseers, not by constraint but willingly, not for dishonest gain but eagerly; nor as being lords over those entrusted to you, but being examples to the flock; and when the Chief Shepherd appears, you will receive the crown of glory that does not fade away. Likewise you younger people, submit yourselves to your elders." In Hebrews 13:7,17 we read: "Remember those who rule over you, who have spoken the word of God to you, whose faith follow, considering the outcome of their conduct. ... Obey those who rule over you, and be submissive, for they watch out for your souls, as those who must give account." "Your leaders" is a better translation than "those who rule over you" in Hebrews 13:7,17,24. The word 'over' is NOT in the original. In a secular context it would be possible to translate 'your governors,' but Jesus says His followers must be different than Gentile 'governors' (Luke 22:26). The basic meaning is 'one who takes the lead.' Our best understanding of the Christian usage of this word comes from Acts 15:22 where Judas and Silas are called "leading men among the brethren." Our leaders are to speak the Word of God to us, and we are to follow their example of faith (Heb. 3:7). We are commanded to OBEY our leaders and to SUBMIT to them (Heb. 13:17). But this may not be divorced from other texts on leadership. Our leaders have no right to be domineering (1 Peter 5:3), telling fellow Christians what to eat, what to wear, whom to associate with, how often they must pray, study, and visit, how much they must give, whom they may date and how often, whether or not and when they may become engaged and/or married, when and how often they may visit their parents, and so forth, as is practiced in the authoritarian discipleship movement. We submit to our leaders when they speak according to the oracles of God (1 Peter 4:11). When they start speaking on their own authority and giving their own commands, they become strangers to us. Christ's sheep follow Him because they know His voice. "Yet they will by no means follow a stranger, but will flee from him, for they do not know the voice of strangers" (John 10:5). Elders have the oversight of the flock. That is taught in the Bible. If I am a member of a congregation I am under the oversight of the elders. But they have no right to appoint someone else to be my private elder! Elders have the right to appoint deacons (servants) to care for certain needs in the congregation. But they do not have the right to appoint anybody to be OVER someone else. Group or Individual Leadership? Is leadership to be provided by the elders as a group, or may each elder, evangelist, and teacher be the individual leader of a segment of the congregation? Alvin Jennings on page 50 of his "3 R's" book states that believers should assemble with small flocks in private residences under the supervision of a shepherd-type pastor, evangelist or teacher. On page 64 he asks whether the shepherd/sheep relationship pictured in John 10:1-17 and in Ezekiel chapter 34 sounds like one man working with twenty or thirty souls, or like a group of four or five men collectively working as a kind of board of directors supervising five hundred or a thousand souls. This line of reasoning illustrates how advocates of pyramid discipleship usurp the authority of Christ. The first passage (John 10:1-17) refers to THE ONE SHEPHERD, JESUS CHRIST, who is over all the souls, millions of them. It is usurping Christ's authority to take this as a model for elders, evangelists and teachers in the church. Actually, it is stated that if anyone ELSE tries to lead the sheep, they will flee from him. No one but Christ may be shepherd in this sense. In the latter portion of Ezekiel 34 God promises that He will deliver His sheep from the unfaithful shepherds of Israel and that HE HIMSELF shall be their Shepherd (verse 15). Then there shall be only ONE SHEPHERD over the sheep (verse 23). This is fulfilled in Christ (Rev. 7:17). Ezekiel 34 does serve as an example of warning for elders who misuse their position for personal gain or who fail to care for the flock. But nothing in either of these passages (which refer to Christ) can be used to justify having ONE elder, evangelist, or teacher over a segment of the church. Both passages do mention ONE SHEPHERD: Christ! With these matters in mind, I restudied all passages in the New Testament which refer to elders. There is no indication that one elder supervised a 'flock' within the congregation. (Abbreviations: pl = plural; s = singular.) Acts 11:30. The elders (pl) received gifts for the poor. Acts 14:23. "When they had appointed elders (pl) in every church (s)..." Acts 15:2. Paul and others were sent to the elders (pl) in Jerusalem. Acts 20:17. Paul called the elders (pl) of the church (s). Acts 20:28. Paul told them: "Take heed to yourselves (pl) and to all the flock (s), among which (s) the Holy Spirit has made you overseers (pl), to shepherd the church (s)." Acts 21:18. All the elders (pl) were present. Phil. 1:1. Paul's letter was addressed to the elders (pl). 1 Tim. 3:5. The elder (s) must rule his own house well otherwise "how will he (s) take care of the church (s) of God?" Each elder cares for the whole church, not just for a part of it. 1 Tim. 4:14. The elders (pl) as a group laid their hands on Timothy. 1 Tim. 5:17. "Let the elders (pl) who rule well be counted worthy of double honour." Titus 1:5. "Appoint elders (pl) in every city." James 5:14. Someone who is sick is to call the elders (pl) of the church (s) and they (pl) are to pray for him. 1 Peter 5:2. "Shepherd (pl) the flock (s) of God which is among you (pl)." 1 Peter 5:3. "Not as being lords (pl) over those (pl) entrusted to you, but being examples (pl) to the flock (s)." 1 Peter 5:5. "Likewise you (pl) younger people submit yourselves to your elders (pl)." One of the first departures (early second century) from the New Testament pattern for the church of Christ was to have one pastor leading each congregation. Each congregation in the New Testament was led by a plurality of elders who provided leadership as a group. A SUMMARY OF THE BASIC FALLACIES OF PYRAMID DISCIPLESHIP 1. It is a human substitute for the reign of God. As in Israel of old, men who underrate God's leadership find His system bare and defective. "Give us a king!" has ever been the cry of men who reject the counsel of God. 2. This system is wrong because it includes unauthorized positions of leadership. The organization of the church is defined in the New Testament (Eph. 1:22; 4:11; Eph. 2:20; Rev. 21:14). The responsibilities of evangelists, pastors and teachers are defined. Nowhere are they authorized to run churches as the heads of hierarchies or to appoint others to do so. No Evangelists or Women's Counselors are found serving as hierarchs in the New Testament. No subordinate levels of leadership are found such as Sector Evangelists, Zone Evangelists, House-Church Leaders or Bible-Talk Leaders. This pyramid scheme of church government is unauthorized and includes unauthorized positions of leadership. It goes beyond what is written (1 Cor. 4:6). That alone is sufficient to classify it as a departure from the doctrine of Christ. Not only is it unauthorized, various inherent aspects of the system directly violate the word of God. Not only do they speak when the Bible is silent, they contradict the Bible when it speaks. 3. Rank is involved, which is forbidden by Christ. "When he was in the house He asked them, 'What was it you disputed among yourselves on the road?' But they kept silent, for on the road they had disputed among themselves who would be the greatest. And he sat down, called the twelve, and said to them, 'If anyone desires to be first, he shall be last of all and servant of all'" (Mark 9:33-35). 4. In this hierarchical system of church government, authority is exercised which is contrary to the doctrine of Christ. When James and John requested the second and third positions in the kingdom, the other apostles were understandably indignant. Jesus explained: "You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and those who are great exercise authority over them. Yet it shall not be so among you" (Matt. 20:25,26). 5. Hierarchical discipleship is wrong because it is based on master/disciple relationships which Christ has forbidden. "But you, do not be called 'Rabbi'; for One is your Teacher, the Christ, and you are all brethren. Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven. And do not be called teachers; for One is your Teacher, the Christ" (Matt. 23:8- 10). This passage uproots hierarchical discipleship. The basic tenant of the movement is wrong. We may NOT follow the example of Christ to the extent that we usurp His authority! We may NOT teach others the way He taught His apostles because He has forbidden it. Astonishingly enough, at Crossroads and at Boston the senior discipleship partner has been called the spiritual father of the one he is leading! Of course they deny that the above passage applies to them. But, so does the Pope! In the hierarchical discipleship movement someone who has been a Christian for only a few months often serves as the spiritual guide of another disciple. An elder may not be a recent convert lest he be puffed up with conceit and fall into the condemnation of the devil (1 Tim. 3:6). Actually, hierarchical discipleship is a hierarchical elder system. Each Christian has a private elder. Even recent converts serve as THE elder of another disciple. And, as was admitted by the Central London evangelists at the Wigan meeting, these zealous novices shepherding others HAVE in many cases been puffed up with conceit and HAVE fallen into the condemnation of the devil. In His divine wisdom, our Lord has disallowed such relationships. We look to Jesus as the author and finisher of our faith (Heb. 12:2) not to some supposedly 'more mature' disciple. Evangelists, pastors and teachers have been provided for the equipping of the saints (Eph. 4:12). They may serve only in accordance with their mandate which does not include the function of Rabbi or hierarch. 6. This system perverts the process of evangelism into an unscriptural hierarchy. The gospel IS to spread from person to person like leaven. Paul told Timothy: "The things that you have heard from me among many witnesses, commit these to faithful men who will be able to teach others also" (1 Tim. 2:2). This passage is often quoted by advocates of hierarchical discipleship. It certainly teaches that the gospel is to spread abroad from person to person. But does this justify master/disciple relationships or a hierarchical organization? Paul is not referring to passing down commands to regulate the private lives of Christians. He is referring to the teachings of Christ. What Timothy heard from Paul is to be 'committed' to faithful men. This is clarified in 2 Timothy 1:13,14 where the same word is used: "Hold fast the pattern of sound words which you have heard from me, in faith and love which are in Christ Jesus. That good thing which was committed to you, keep by the Holy Spirit who dwells in us." The word 'committed' indicates personal responsibility and a certain detachment from the one who has given something in trust. This is the exact opposite of an authoritarian hierarchical arrangement! I do not entrust something to someone if I retain control over it. The Word of truth is to be taught to faithful men who will teach others also. Although I have applied this passage for years, no hierarchy has developed. By the grace of God, during my twenty-five years as an evangelist in Europe, I have had the privilege of teaching faithful men who are now teaching others. But since we were all taught to be disciples of Christ, rather than disciples of the one who taught us, this is nothing more than a historical chain of events. We are brethren and there are no levels of leadership among us. I have taught them to depend on God, not on me. And I would be ashamed, and it would be an affront to my Lord, were I to fill in a chart (as suggested on page 128 of Alvin Jennings' 3 R's book) with me at the top of a pyramid. From some of those whom I have taught, I have learned more than they learned from me. How arrogant it would be for me to set myself up as 'their teacher.' We are to esteem others better than ourselves (Phil. 2:3). The first shall be last, and the last first. There are no pyramids in the Lord's book and there may be none in His church. We may have teachers in the church, but not Rabbis. May the gospel spread from soul to soul into all the world and may each of us do our part. But let us not pervert our fraternal relationship with those we teach into an unscriptural master/disciple relationship. Biblical discipleship is Christ-centred. Hierarchical discipleship is man-centred. There are other unscriptural doctrines and practices found among advocates of hierarchical discipleship which we have not discussed. An attempt has been made, however, to focus attention on those errors which are most fundamental and prevalent. In this movement men are lording it over others in the name of the lordship of Christ. They are usurping the authority of Christ by referring to His disciples as their own and by teaching that one can best learn to follow Christ by following other men. Men are establishing themselves as master teachers in the church. Extra-Biblical rules and regulations are being enforced. Authoritarian chains of command are being set up among Christians. An unscriptural metropolitan form of church government is advocated, which at Boston has developed into a worldwide hierarchy. Men are being appointed as authoritarian leaders on various levels in God's church. This system is based, not on the New Testament, but on sectarian writings. It is unauthorized and includes unauthorized positions of leadership. It involves rank and authority contrary to the doctrine of Christ. It is based on master/disciple relationships forbidden by Christ. The Biblical process of evangelism has been perverted into an unscriptural hierarchy. How Serious Are These Errors? Extremely so! When brethren usurp the authority of Christ and advocate unscriptural church government it is not just a 'matter of opinion' or a 'method of evangelism.' Heartrending divisions have already occurred in many places where false teachers have infiltrated congregations and built up a following. When called to order by the elders they refused to repent, took 'their disciples' and left. In other cases they gained control of the congregation and those who did not agree with them had to leave. Smooth-talking men of influence are doing all they can to champion these ideas. In private discussions and in long letters brethren have lovingly shown them from the Scriptures the errors they are making, but most of them refuse to listen and repent. They are leading many astray. HOW SHOULD WE TREAT PEOPLE IN THIS MOVEMENT? What should our attitude be toward people from churches practicing hierarchical discipleship? There is no reason to doubt that these congregations include people who believe in Christ and have been baptized into His body. If such persons wish to worship with us and are willing to respect Biblical leadership they should be received in love. As the need arises, the way of God can be explained to them more accurately (Acts 18:26). Beware of the Wolves False teachers, however, must be rejected: "I urge you, brethren, note those who cause divisions and offenses, contrary to the doctrine which you learned, and avoid them" (Rom. 16:17). Advocates of pyramid discipleship HAVE caused division through the introduction of a hierarchical form of church government which conflicts with Biblical principles of leadership. How we treat them is not an optional matter. God has COMMANDED us to note false teachers and to avoid them! "For those who are such do not serve our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly, and by smooth words and flattering speech deceive the hearts of the simple" (Rom. 16:18). Paul warned that certain brethren would draw away disciples after themselves. May we never be among them. "For I know this, that after my departure savage wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock. Also from among yourselves men will rise up, speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after themselves. Therefore watch" (Acts 20:29-31). False Pleas for Unity Keep in mind that wolves are always in favour of unity between wolves and sheep. But what they have in mind is not conducive to the well-being of the sheep! We all need to pray for peace and unity among God's people. At the same time we must remember that there can be no unity between truth and falsehood. Among Christians there are always some who do not love the truth. They do not study the word, or they study the word but do not accept what it says. Such people are extremely susceptible to being misled by false teachers. That is why divisions have always taken place down through the ages and always will. Actually, they purify the church (1 Cor. 11:18,19). Those who added musical instruments to the worship a century ago emphasized unity. They wanted to be accepted, unscriptural practices and all. Understandably, for that would allow them to spread their false teachings further. They emphasized unity and divided the church. Advocates of the 'Missionary Society' also emphasized unity as they divided the church over their sectarian 'method of evangelism.' Actually, the Society was a flop. But that did not deter its champions. What if it had been a 'success'? Would it have been less unscriptural? It would have been more dangerous, especially in a country like America where 'success' is a national god. Those who now worship with instruments still want us to ACCEPT them. They claim they want unity. But THEY CAUSE DIVISION. As they caused division a century ago, so they cause division now by their agitations. Their plea for unity is hypocritical. Their desire for unity is not great, or they would be willing to put aside unscriptural worship for the sake of unity. They are more dedicated to mechanical music than to unity on the basis of God's Word. Their goal is unity on their own terms, not unity in Christ. Division has ALREADY COME as a result of the authoritarian discipleship movement. Many people have already accepted these false teachings and practices, who show no signs of repenting. Those who follow Christ, refuse to follow men, and a parting of the ways is inevitable between those who walk straight ahead on the narrow road and those who turn aside. Division is always sad, but it is better than apostacy. The Corinthians The argument has been made by some who are in favour of amoebic unity that the Boston/Crossroads type churches are "every bit as faithful to the word of God as the Corinthians." The Corinthians had serious problems, but they also had an excellent characteristic: when Paul wrote to them they REPENTED (2 Cor. 7:7-15)! Those who reject Christ's authority by advocating teacher/disciple relationships among Christians (contrary to Matt. 23:8-10) and by setting up a hierarchy with men over tens, fifties, hundreds and thousands (contrary to Mark 10:42,43) have been warned clearly and repeatedly about the errors of their ways, but they REFUSE to repent. What would Paul have done if the Corinthians had refused to repent? He said that anyone who rejected what he wrote was to be rejected (1 Cor. 14:38)! He also said he was ready to punish every disobedience (2 Cor. 10:6). And what did Paul say about those who had led the Corinthians astray? "For such men are false apostles, deceitful workmen, disguising themselves as apostles of Christ. And no wonder, for even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light. So it is not strange if his servants also disguise themselves as servants of righteousness. Their end will correspond to their deeds" (2 Cor. 11:13-15). Do not dishonour the Corinthians by comparing them with advocates of authoritarian discipleship. The Corinthians repented of their many sins. The 'disciplers' have not repented and most of them probably never will. As one of their evangelists said: "It's going to be something you'll have to deal with for a long time, probably from now on." Avoid Them No, we may not unite with people who cause dissensions in the body of Christ. If Romans 16:17,18 ever applied to anyone, it applies to leaders in the 'get discipled by men' movement: "Now I urge you, brethren, note those who cause divisions and offenses, contrary to the doctrine which you learned, and avoid them. For those who are such do not serve our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly, and by smooth words and flattering speech deceive the hearts of the simple." Love Be sure to maintain the spirit of Christ in your dealings with those who are misled or confused. Resistance to error can do more harm than good if it is not Christlike. Love must be our motive in opposing the doctrines of these men. We love them and hope they will repent. We also love the souls they are deceiving and the church they are dividing. A Blessing or a Curse? For those who know and love the Word of God, this 'discipleship' movement will be a blessing. When the subject is discussed they will test all things and retain that which is good. They will be forced to restudy discipleship and this will deepen their commitment as followers of Christ. People who become Christians through this movement, if they love the truth, will continue to grow in knowledge. Eventually they will cast off human domination and will find their way to congregations which submit to the authority of Christ, as has already occurred in many cases. Certain people, however, are in danger of being deceived and led astray; for example, those for whom numerical 'success' is more important than truth, those who are intrigued by human theories and doctrines, those who prefer being told what to do rather than accepting their own responsibility, and those who like to exercise authority over others. Statistics can be Deceiving Fidelity to New Testament principles and practice is the ONLY valid measure of success. Numerical 'success' on an unscriptural foundation is not true success. An impressive house can be built on sand, but only the house on the Rock will stand. A child can count the seeds in an apple, but only God knows how many apples are in a seed. Watch Out! Total commitment is Biblical, regimentation is not. New Testament teaching on discipleship and personal commitment to Christ certainly needs to be stressed. But after someone presents a stirring plea for you to follow Christ, be careful that he doesn't trick you into following HIM instead. Let us follow the old paths and not be led astray by human precepts and practices even if they do have "an appearance of wisdom" (Col. 2:23). Only if we continue in the word of Christ are we truly His disciples (John 8:31).