Discipleship: On Commitment - Absolute or Relative?

(Updated copy.)

As I go through this week's Sabbath School lesson, the message I get from the study guide is that people who can't, won't, and don't make a full commitment are not disciples of Jesus.

That leaves me with an unsettled feeling in my stomach and in my head. Something seems "off" and not quite right. Am I misinterpreting the lesson and getting the wrong message? Or maybe I'm looking at things from a very different perspective than the lesson expects. I have a strong suspicion it is the latter.

This week's lesson is definitely about the lack of commitment, as evidenced by the title: Lessons from Would-Be Disciples. So I spent some time analyzing what my presuppositions are that cause such a disconnect between my conclusions and the lesson's.

I think the disconnect revolves around the following issues:

1. What is the definition of disciple?
2. What is the purpose of discipleship?
3. Is there only a one-size-fits all model of discipleship?

These questions are related, so the answer to one informs and modifies the understandings of the other two. They can't be separated. In the following discussion, all of the above are within the context of a relationship with Jesus.

What is the definition of disciple? In the broadest sense it is anyone who wants to learn from Jesus. More narrowly, at least for people today, it is someone who has come to believe and has chosen to follow him. I think the lesson and I agree on this point. The disconnect is whether all who have come to believe, and have even chosen to follow are disciples in the sense that the lesson portrays the (ideal) disciple. This is where the responses to questions 2 and 3 intertwine with the response to question 1. If the forms (the behaviors and actions) that the disciples take are fixed and absolute, then my definition of disciple would be extremely narrow; i.e., a disciple is someone who, due to their spiritual maturity and intimate walk and trust with Jesus, have been called in a unique way to learn from him to accomplish a unique purpose. (You may want to review my other blog post, Discipleship: Form vs. Function for more on this.) In this case, I would have to classify Christians into the following classifications in order of least mature to most mature: believer, follower, disciple, apostle, saint. However, I don't think this is the right way to define and classify. So we must go on to the next question...

What is the purpose of discipleship? I just glanced through the first four lessons for this quarter, and I can't find a good answer in any of them. They all talk about the importance of it, and what it supposedly looks like, but I cannot find the answer to Why? There is one small sentence in the Introduction (which most people I'm sure skip) that makes an attempt to explain the Why? of discipleship:

Disciples are committed to being responsible members of the church through active and consistent participation in mission, and they are moved by the internal motivation of God's Spirit.

But even this doesn't, at least for me, answer the deeper Why? What is the purpose of discipleship? To make better church members? To be better workers for God? I think these are results, rather than the purpose of discipleship. When I contemplated this question, I arrived at the following response: The purpose of discipleship is for believers to learn that God is trustworthy, for them to learn to trust in God, and then learn to act upon that trust and trustworthiness.

Now in my mind, related intimately to trust and trustworthiness is the idea of commitment. A person (a sane and rational one anyway) only commits (could I use the word trust as a replacement?) himself or herself to someone they've learned is trustworthy. And I think this is the key: Trust does not come all at once. It starts out small, and as a person experiences and learns that the other party is trustworthy in a small way, they become willing to take a leap of faith to trust in a bigger way. And since I believe trust and commitment are really the same thing, I would argue that commitment also occurs in stages.

And here we get to the third question: Is there only a one-size-fits all model of discipleship? Given my view that commitment comes in stages, I would argue against the one-size-fits-all model of discipleship. Unfortunately, the impression I get from the study guide is just that: There is one look to discipleship; or stated another way, a full commitment to Jesus looks the same across the board. (By the way, lest some of you think all I do is rant, I'm not the only one who has received this impression.)

The lesson goes to great lengths to explain that a disciple is one who has made a full commitment to follow Jesus. I have no disagreement with this if and only if the stages model of commitment is employed. In this model, I see as fully committed, the person taking their first tentative step by accepting and believing in Jesus; thus he or she is a true disciple. The person who has been a believer for a while and is growing, and who remains fully committed to the trustworthiness of God as shown to him or her up to that point, is also a true disciple. And so on. Full commitment looks and acts differently from one individual to another. Two individuals who have walked with Jesus for fifty years can be fully commited and yet their commitments will have differences in what we observe.

Since this week's lesson is about would-be disciples, I figure I should make a comment regarding that. I think such a thing could exist. My definition of a would-be disciple is someone who isn't trusting themselves to God to the extent that God has shown to them that He is trustworthy. So yes, it is definitely about less than full commitment. In this we have the corollary of last paragraph's summary: Less than full commitment also looks differently from one individual to another.

In regards to some of the individuals mentioned in this week's lesson, I'd like to note the following. Could it be that Jesus sent away the volunteer disciples (memory text, Sunday, Tuesday) because he realized that their growth and maturity weren't yet to the point where they could follow in the way they thought they could? Now there is the one that Jesus called to follow but refused (Monday). That is the only one that seems to fit the definition of would-be disciple that I gave above. It seems like Jesus knew that this person was ready for the next level in commitment and trust, but he wasn't willing to take it. As for Nicodemus (Wednesday), my opinion is that he was a disciple. He took a baby step that night with Jesus, and then as he continued to see and hear Jesus, his trust in Jesus grew, and so did his commitment. I don't think (again, my opinion) he was ever what the lesson calls a would-be disciple.

(I honestly don't understand quite how Thursday's topic, Herd Mentality, fits. Thus I won't discuss it here.)

Maybe the point of all this is that as we study discipleship this quarter, the worst thing we can do is to look at it as a kind of checklist and judge others or even ourselves.