Page 1 of 11
Original Research
Imagine-making disciples in youth ministry … that will
make disciples
Author:
Malan Nel1
Ailiaion:
1
Department of Pracical
Theology, Faculty of
Theology, University of
Pretoria, South Africa
Note:
Prof. Malan Nel is an
Extraordinary Professor in
the Department of Pracical
Theology, University of
Pretoria, Pretoria,
South Africa.
Discipling youth may be one of the ‘missing links’ in developing missional thinking and
missional local churches. This is even more so where churches suffer from a very obvious
estrangement among generations. This article draws on the most recent literature on
developing missional churches. The departure point is the argument of a the New Testament
scholar, who refers to the description of Matthew 28:16–20 as the manifesto of the church – a
manifesto that lies on the same level of value as the Shema of Israel: ‘Listen, o Israel, the Lord
our God is the only One.‘ This manifesto wants to tell us how new and differently we have
to think on how people come into the body and how people will stay in the body. Picking
up on three of my theological premises this article will work with a research question: What
kind of church will make disciples in youth ministry? It will also work towards theological
suggestions on how to make disciples in youth ministry in such a way that young disciples
will make disciples.
Correspondence to:
Malan Nel
Introducion
Email:
malannelup@gmail.com
I consider it a special honour to participate in the Festschrift for Christo van der Merwe. We have
come a long way. In 1994 he participated in an Advanced Course for Gemeentebou that I offered.
We became not only good friends but also later in his life I could be his external examiner for his
PhD thesis in this subject ield. Since then we have continued to work together and he helped
in the offering of the same course for many other pastors in their programme for continuing
theological training. My contribution in this article is indeed to honour him and to focus on a
theme that is important in his thinking and approach. I purposefully focus on the youth. I am
convinced that Christo believes with me, that if we do not transform local congregations into
disciple youth we are, in a sense, labouring in vain.
Postal address:
PO Box 576, Newlands 0049,
South Africa
Dates:
Received: 18 Mar. 2015
Accepted: 26 Apr. 2015
Published: 14 Aug. 2015
How to cite this aricle:
Nel, M., 2015, ‘Imaginemaking disciples in youth
ministry ... that will make
disciples’, HTS Teologiese
Studies/Theological Studies
71(3), Art. #2940, 11 pages.
htp://dx.doi.org/10.4102/
hts.v71i3.2940
Copyright:
© 2015. The Authors.
Licensee: AOSIS
OpenJournals. This work is
licensed under the Creaive
Commons Atribuion
License.
God wants all of us to have life and life abundantly (cf. Jn 10:10b). This runs like a golden
thread (core issue) through the whole of the Bible. The ministry of Jesus is in this regard only
the fulilment of what was God’s purpose for humans all along. Life is a gift of God. This is the
meaning of for example Psalm 127: ‘Sons are a heritage from the Lord, children a reward from
him’ (New International Version [NIV]). God created (gave life) and continues to do so. However
powerful evil is, it cannot ‘produce’ life (humans). God in Christ and by the hermeneutical work
of the Spirit helps us to rediscover and re-interpret life. The Gospel of Matthew is full of his
remarks: ‘You have heard that it was said … But I tell you …’ (cf. for example the many times in
the Sermon on the Mount, Mt 5–7).
My port of entry in this article will be that we have missed and are missing the quality of the life
we received. Our call to discipleship and the making of disciples is to get back the fullness of
our lives. The journey of discipleship is one lifelong journey of rediscovering and recovering the
fullness we may have missed.
My conviction after the many years in youth ministry and in youth ministry research and training
is that we have missed this Kingdom-like perspective on salvation and life as such. For some or
other reason (some quite understandably so) our understanding of salvation as decision-making
rather than disciple-making has not done the job. It is misiring and backiring into our faces.
Faith communities are paying the price. Shallow, even supericial, connections to the Christ and
his body are falling apart in front of our eyes. So much so that, in spite of the many exceptions the
‘church’ is in trouble around the world.
Read online:
Scan this QR
code with your
smart phone or
mobile device
to read online.
In the article ‘Inviting and initiating youth into a life of discipleship’ (Nel 2009) I posed the
following:
The research question/problem on which I want to relect in this article is whether we have lost the
radical nature of the faith community as disciples of Jesus and seekers of the Kingdom. Have we to follow
htp://www.hts.org.za
doi:10.4102/hts.v71i3.2940
Page 2 of 11
Original Research
Jesus into the mission ield? (Cf. Easum 2001) If so, how should
we invite and initiate youth into a life of discipleship? (p. 99)
Picking up on three theological premises in that article,
namely:
• that children and adolescents are an integral part of the
faith community
• that youth ministry is in essence done relationally and if
and when at all possible by a parent or parents AND in
the closest relation with ‘the home’
• that discipling youth is about celebrating initiation, giving
guidance on a road of fulilment in life, and facilitating
discernment on the journey.
This article will work towards theological suggestions on who
will and how to transform faith communities into a movement
where we make disciples in youth ministry – in such a way
that young disciples will make disciples.
I will focus on three questions and dimensions in particular:
• how discipleship and discipling is dealt with in the socalled missional conversation
• what kind of ‘people’ are best suited to make disciples in
youth ministry – being before doing
• what will we have to change in our Christian Education
(teaching and learning) in order for youth ministry
to reform and transform local faith communities into
disciple-making movements?
Discipleship and disciple-making in
the missional conversaion
The literature that ‘covers’ this conversation is vast. I will
not even attempt to be all-inclusive. After working through
more than 100 publications on missional thinking in 2013
I still have only scratched the surface. There are some 118
references to disciples, discipleship and disciple-making in
these publications. I can summarise the references here but
refer to 21 of these authors in the bibliography below. Not
all of them are considered to be formally part of the so-called
missional conversation. Some 25 references were found in the
more than 30 authors consulted in the ield of youth ministry.
I refer to four of them in the bibliography below.
There may be many reasons why we shy away from this central
concept and metaphor of discipleship in the teachings of Jesus.
Ogden (2003:39–56) in a chapter on ‘The discipleship malaise’
discerns eight factors that have contributed to ‘the low estate
of discipleship, to the church’s failure to grow self-initiating,
reproducing, fully devoted followers of Jesus’ (2003:40):
1. ‘pastors have been diverted from their primary calling to
‘equip the saints for the work of ministry’ (p. 40)
2. ‘we have tried to make disciples through programs:
The Scriptural context for growing disciples is through
relationships … Unless disciples receive personal attention
so that their particular growth needs are addressed in a
way that calls them to die to self and live fully to Christ,
htp://www.hts.org.za
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
a disciple will not be made … Since individual, personal
investment is costly and time-intensive, we have put
programs in place’ (pp. 42–43)
‘we have reduced the Christian life to the eternal beneits
we get from Jesus, rather than living as students of Jesus’
(pp. 46–47)
‘we have made discipleship for super-Christians, not for
ordinary believers’ (pp. 48–49; cf. also Nel 2004:97–102);
‘leaders have been unwilling to call people to discipleship’
(pp. 49–51)
‘we have an inadequate view of the church as a
discipleship community. Biblical discipleship is never
seen as a me-and-Jesus solo relationship, for the church
is a discipleship community’ (p. 51). He refers to Robert
Putman’s Bowling Alone (2000) making ‘the convincing
case that the social capital of religious life is being
undermined by privatized faith’ (p. 51)
‘most churches have no clear, public pathway to maturity’
(pp. 52–54)
‘most Christians have never been personally discipled’
(pp. 54–56).
Ogden (2003:54), who is not formally part of the so-called
missional conversation, then states what he calls the heart of
his book (and for those who know his work it may be fair
to say of his research and publications as such). He (Ogden
2003) calls it:
[O]ur paradigm shift question: How can we grow Christians
into self-initiating, reproducing, fully devoted followers of Jesus
Christ? My conviction is that the primary way people grow into
self-initiating, reproducing, fully devoted followers of Jesus Christ
is by being involved in highly accountable, relational, multiplying
discipleship units of three or four … By discipling I mean ‘a process
that takes place within accountable relationships over a period of
time for the purpose of bringing believers to spiritual maturity
in Christ.’ (His quote is from The Eastbourne Consultation, Joint
Statement on Discipleship, September 24, 1999). (p. 54)
There is indeed a sometimes obvious negativity towards the
concept and metaphor, even more so in the so-called mainline
and ‘more liberal circles’ (Stoppels 2013:15). Stoppels (2013:67)
gives as a fourth reason for his choice of the concept and his
desire to restore the concept in its honour in his mainline
denomination. My purpose is not to apportion blame in any
way. I rather want to acknowledge with Stoppels (2013:13–17)
that there is indeed what he calls an ‘ecclesial turn’ in our
discussion. In many circles, whether mainline or among the
so-called evangelicals, there is a new discovery of this neglected
jewel in the crown of faithful missional churches. Stoppels
(2013:13) chooses to go for discipleship and discipling in his
book and does so under the motto: ‘Jesus called learners, not
church people’.1 Stoppels (2013:13) acknowledges that such
an ‘oneliner’ is indeed not nuanced enough, but it does carry
the dialectic tension which should exist in churches.
It is however not only Ogden and Stoppels who realise
this missing link in our missional thinking. Many others
1.‘Jezus roept leerlingen, geen kerkmensen.’
doi:10.4102/hts.v71i3.2940
Page 3 of 11
are concerned. And even though, it is as if I am missing an
open willingness to discuss and ‘promote’ the concept and
metaphor. It may very well be that the missional discussion
had to get our thinking out of the paradigm of ‘saving souls for
heaven’. It has to help us discover what Guder (2000:97–143)
calls and describes as the ‘reductionisms’ of the Christendom
era. Together with Bosch (1991) we had and still have to
rediscover that mission is God’s ‘yes’ and God’s ‘no’ to and
in this broken world:
In our time, God’s yes to the world reveals itself, to a large
extend, in the church’s missionary engagement in respect of the
realities of injustice, oppression, poverty, discrimination, and
violence. (p. 10)
Bosch (1991:73–83) in his book, has a section on discipleship
and refers to Matthew’s Gospel with the words: ‘Matthew’s
paradigm: missionary discipleship’ (p. 79). I purposefully
refer to Bosch in this regard. His works (together with
work done by Leslie Newbigin) inluenced the missional
conversation (and initially the Gospel and ‘Our Culture’
discussion and series) deeply. I do not know of any speciic
and in-depth references and further in-depth research on
‘missionary discipleship’ – admitting what I have stated
above. This conversation is covered in such a variety of
books, that I may just have missed some references. It may
also be true that authors just accept that what they cover
in their books is indeed related to ‘missionary discipleship’
even though it is not speciically stated as such.
One of the reasons may be a misunderstanding or lack of
emphasis on evangelism within our new and challenging
missional discussion and understanding. Understandably
we are sensitive to perceptions of evangelism within the
multi-faith discussion and dialogue. We need to be. Being
missional is to understand a little of Jesus’ inclusive thinking.
Missional literature often refers to this inclusive nature of
a missional church (cf. Gittins 2008:198; Clark 2005:72 to
name but two). This may sometimes or often does lead to a
lack of passion for sharing the good news. At the same time
there is such a worldwide reaction against a sometimes very
un-Christlike confrontational approach to evangelism that
many theologians rather shy away even from the concept
(cf. Nel 1997–1998, 2002, 2007; Stoppels 2013:67). Bosch
(1991) refers to evangelism (his italics) as one of the ‘essential
dimensions’ of mission.
Evangelism is the proclamation of salvation in Christ to those
who do not believe in him, calling them to repentance and
conversion, announcing forgiveness of sin, and inviting them to
become living members of Christ’s earthly community and to
begin a life of service to others in the power of the Holy Spirit.
(pp. 10–11)
When further on in his book (Bosch 1991:73–83) he discusses
discipleship he makes no direct link to evangelism. Malphurs
(2007:80–83) also does not connect, at least not in a direct
way, evangelism with discipling. He (2007:79) names ive
functions that according to him are: ‘timeless, unchanging,
non-negotiable, based on the Bible.’ The ive are teaching,
htp://www.hts.org.za
Original Research
fellowship, worship, evangelism and service. Malphurs
(2007:84) refers (without naming the source) to Rick Warren
who has ive purposes for the church, one of them being
discipleship. The ive are: evangelism, worship, fellowship,
discipleship, and ministry.
To my mind this missing link may be one of the reasons for
the often underdevelopment of discipleship ministries in
congregations. Even when churches do evangelise, they do
not see it as deeply related to the principle and the way in
which we ‘make disciples’. To my mind disciple-making is
evangelising in its very core. Ott (Ott & Wilson 2011) does
connect the two:
Church planting is that ministry which through evangelism and
discipleship establishes reproducing kingdom communities of
believers in Jesus Christ who are committed to fulilling biblical
purposes under local spiritual leaders. (p. 8)
Armstrong (1979) did connect service evangelism and
discipleship in a direct way:
[W]e show with integrity our belief in Jesus Christ as the Son
of God if we ask ourselves what it means to be Christ’s man or
Christ’s woman in the world today. The answer to that question
deines the quality of our discipleship; and when church
members take it seriously, the church will truly become a servant
church. (p. 38)
(See also cf. Sjogren 1993:20ff. and what he calls ‘servant
evangelism=deeds of love+words of love+adequate time.’)
We must understand the subtle distinction between
evangelism and disciple-making. There is a difference.
But: when disciple-making does not include evangelism
and vice versa we get the situation we are in at present.
Like congregations include youth so does disciple-making
include the sharing of the good news of Jesus the Christ.
The decisions we are looking for in evangelism should be for
a commitment to a life of discipleship – and not to book a
place in the waiting room of heaven. Stoppels (cf. 2013:87)
refers to the seriousness of this choice to follow the Christ.
It involves the totality of life, lifelong learning. In his own
words (Stoppels 2013):
A learner of Jesus Christ is someone who, in the power of the
Holy Spirit and in communion with (the) other learners, desires
to learn with his or her total life to live life in following Him.
A learner (disciple) is someone who sincerely directs/focuses his
or her life on the Kingdom of God as Jesus Christ has embodied
and proclaimed it. (p. 73)2
A further missing link in missional literature is the inclusive
nature of the faith community itself. I cannot recall any
reference to youth in the books on missional churches and the
development of such communities. I just may have missed
it or the authors may assume that youth is an integral part
2.My free translaion of: ‘Een leerling van Jezus Christus is een mens die in de kracht
van de heilige Geest en in verbondenheid met (de) kring(en) van andere leerlingen
over de volle breedte van zijn of haar leven het verlangen heet te leren leven in zijn
spoor en zijn leven daadwerkelijk en duurzaam richt op het Rijk Gods zoals Jezus
Christus dat belichaamde en verkondigde.’
doi:10.4102/hts.v71i3.2940
Page 4 of 11
of the body – which should be the case. My suspicion (and
I may be totally wrong and I would be glad in case I am) is
however that there is almost a subconscious ‘adult’ mindset
when we write about the missional church.
What should be said in all honesty is that even when the
concept and metaphor of discipleship is not speciically
used there is a strong emphasis on teaching and learning.
Most scholars know that ‘learning’ lies at the heart of
discipleship. Even though it is not the focus of this article
to explore this in depth, I do need to refer to the very good
contribution by Osmer (2012:29–55) in a book published
within the ‘missional conversation’. To my mind ‘formation’
is not only necessary in developing missional thinking and
practices, it is in itself discipling and should be disciplemaking as such. Osmer (2012) connects formation with
discipling:
In contrast, the missional church leaders viewed the purpose
of formation as cultivating a life of active discipleship in ways
that represent both a break with the immediate past of the
congregation and was more open to cultures of people not
currently in the church. (p. 34)
What kind of ‘people’ are best
suited to make disciples in youth
ministry – being before doing
When evangelism is a power game churches loose their Godgiven Christlike identity and integrity. I will try to explore
the kind of people who are best itted to make disciples and
help us get back what we have ‘lost’, even in youth ministry.
To start with, I will use a rather lengthy part of the work of
Gittins (2008). At one point (2008:185–189) he asks: ‘Would
Jesus recognize the Church? What Church would Jesus
recognize?’ In his discussion (pp. 161–198) he focuses a lot on
the being (my italics) of the faith community. In quoting him
(Gittins 2008) I hope that I am doing justice to a good piece of
incarnational theology:
Unless there is some person of faith, then there is no faith; if hope
is not carried by real people, then hope does not exist or has
already died; if love is only found in the dictionary, the love
itself has become extinct in the world. The Christian community
lives ‘in memory of (Jesus)’ and is required to ‘do this in memory
of (Jesus)’. As the religion of incarnation and the faith of those
who claim to know God, Christianity loses all credibility unless
it is alive, not in cathedrals, creeds, or catechisms, but in people.
It can only live in people if it is not just what they say they
believe, but what they can be seen to do and how they actually
live. (p. 161)
And further (Gittins 2008):
[A] Church relying on imperial, hierarchical, patriarchal, sexist
model that is unquestionably broken … surely cannot be ixed,
whether by iat or fad, and certainly not by ission. Some things
are beyond simple ixing; they must be radically restructured –
‘restored’ in the truest sense of ‘brought back into existence;
brought back to health’. (pp. 187–188)
htp://www.hts.org.za
Original Research
But this is precisely why Jesus came (Lk 4:18–19).
Uninspired and timid solutions are not appropriate to those people
inspired by the Jesus image of the realm of God; and cosmetic
modiications cannot mask decay and necrosis indeinitely. In a
world at once polarized by fundamentalist religions, secularized
by the worship of mammon, and poisoned by the toxic fumes of
postmodern nihilism, what is urgently needed is a new awakening
and a concerted effort on the part of the few, to be conformed
to Jesus. It is highly unlikely that this will be a widespread or
popular movement … If true restoration is to happen (which is far
from nostalgia-driven ‘restorationism’), it is certainly necessary
to activate the virtue of hope that characterizes true Christians
(1 Peter 3:15). … Does the Church – as institution, as hierarchy, as
patriarchal hegemony – have the will and the capacity to turn and
be converted? (Gittins 2008:188–189)
With reference to the purpose of the church according to
scripture he (Gittins 2008) writes:
The church was not intended to take over or become the
plenipotentiary in charge of God’s mission; the Church was
called to be a servant, committed to the service of the realm of
God. As sacrament or sign of God’s reign therefor, the Church
should always point beyond itself, to the one who is the Way,
Truth, and the Life, redirecting seekers and searchers in Jesus’
name, so that they do not become hopelessly lost. (p. 190)
We are called to be a ‘Church for sinners and Community of
Saints’ (Gittins 2008:192).
And then a paragraph (Gittins 2008) that is of vital importance
to our research theme:
There will always be need for the Church as community called
and sent by Jesus. But it will always be called to be a community
of inclusive table fellowship and gracious foot washing, a
boundary-breaking rather than a boundary-maintaining
community, and a community of mission more than a corporation
of maintenance. But in order to do this faithfully and well, it will
always be in need of repentance and always called to inspire and
cultivate a discipleship of equals, because it will always need to
remember that Jesus said ‘you also should do as I have done to
you’ (John 13:13–15). This I submit is the only authentic way we
can be disciples, the only honest way to be missional, and the
only appropriate way to be Church. (p. 198)
One may say that ‘learning’ and coming to terms with ‘our’
own brokenness is almost a prerequisite for disciple-making
churches. The New Testament scholar Van Aarde (2006:
103–122) wrote his article on how to ‘come in’ and ‘stay in’.
He explores the understanding of the Gospel of Matthew
with regard to discipleship and disciple-making (as does
Bosch 1991:73–83). This because:
[T]he theme of discipleship is central to Matthew’s Gospel and
Matthew’s understanding of the church and mission… ‘The verb
occurs only four times in the New Testament, three of these in
Matthew (13:52; 27:57; 28:19) and one in Acts (14:21).’ (p. 73)
Willard (1998:3) wrote: ‘the New Testament is a book about
disciples, by disciples, and for disciples of Jesus Christ’ (also
cf. Willard 2006; Stoppels [2013:66] for similar arguments).
doi:10.4102/hts.v71i3.2940
Page 5 of 11
Van Aarde (2006:107) openly declares that the conversion
of the church is a prerequisite for our legitimate missional
involvement in this world (cf. Guder 2000). He builds on the
exegetical background of Matthew 28:18–20. According to
him (2006:103) Matthew 28:16–20 is an almost direct account
of the Greek translation of the Aramaic text of Daniel 7:14.
With reference to Schlatter ([1933] 1963:797) this promise of
God’s presence relates to Paul’s use of being ‘in Christ’.
My purpose is not an exegetical exploration. My purpose is
to employ the research by a world-renowned New Testament
scholar and hopefully contribute to a discussion on what
kind of faith community (church) will get back to a normal
practice of a disciple-making ministry. According to Van
Aarde (2006:112–113 my free translation of the Afrikaans):
Matthew 28:16–20 has been described as the manifesto (Von
Harnack in Frederick D. Bruner 1990:1094) of the church – a
manifesto that is on the same level of value as the Shema of Israel
(Ernst Lohmeyer 1967:416): ‘Hear, O Israel: the Lord our God, the
Lord is one’ (the Afrikaans translation used by Van Aarde is: ‘the
only Lord’). This manifesto wants to say to us how radically new
we have to think about how people come in and stay in. This
‘coming in’ and ‘staying in’ is not without tension. This manifesto
must be seen in the light of the cross and the resurrection account
in Matthew: The dying of an old dispensation and the dawn of
a radically new dispensation (see Van Aarde 1998a; cf. Trilling
1969). In this radically new dispensation one inds in Matthew an
imperfect (‘onvolledig’) church that cannot, like the 12 of old, claim
a certain humanly roundedness – even the twelve has change to
the eleven after Jude, Iscariot left – the broken group (church),
the ‘sinners church’. It is this broken church that receives the
great commission – not a perfect church, but an imperfect one,
the elevenish (Bruner 1990:1090) church. (pp. 112–113)
In this regard it is important to consider the important role
that Matthew 5:3 plays in the understanding of this Gospel:
‘Blessed are those who know how dependent they are upon
God’ – the so-called ‘poor in spirit’ (NIV) – ‘Theirs is the
kingdom of heaven’ (also cf. the title of Sjogren 2002).
To look at it one more time from another angle: Van Aarde
(2006:106–107) refers to a monograph by Barth (1932:189–215)
on the humanness of God. Barth relects in the monograph
on the acquisition that dialectic theology is apathetic towards
mission. He points out that we should not too easily speak
of and make a distinction between ‘insiders’ and ‘outsiders’:
“Even the most convinced Christians should recognise
themselves as ‘outsiders’. We who are in the church should
remember that the church is indeed a ‘heathen church’, a ‘tax
collector church’ – meaning that we as people in the church
plead with God to have mercy on us ‘pitiful sinners’. To be
faithful in mission we are asked to ‘turn around’ (convert).
As far as those outside of the church are concerned we
should think of the ‘outsiders’ as implicit ‘insiders’. You
ought to think of the ‘outsiders’ as people you want to see as
being ‘inside’. The outsiders are ‘the church on the other side’
(cf. Mclaren [1998] 2000:121–143). Blauw (1962) has noticed
this already in his relection on the Old Testament:
htp://www.hts.org.za
Original Research
All the emphasis falls on the fact that the world of nations is a gift to the
Messianic Servant; there is no reference here to the world as a ‘mission
territory’ of the Servant. (p. 43ff., [italics original])
According to the Gospel of Matthew we should realise that
disciples are not ‘in’ because we have managed to get in on
our own and by our own doing. The relational character of
the covenant is important in understanding this attitude of
the church that is in the discipling ministry. God brought
us in and on the ‘inside’ we should never lose sight of this:
we should remember where we come from and who we
are (Van Aarde 2006:110). The message of Matthew is that
those outsiders (people of whom no one takes notice [Mt
5:3]), truly outsiders, will inherit the Kingdom. Van Aarde
(2006:111) relates this understanding directly to the Pauline
understanding of being at the same time ‘old’ and ‘new’ –
and as Paul asks of Israel never to call self-righteousness,
God’s righteousness (cf. Rm 10:3). According to Van
Aarde (2006:114–117) Matthew helps us to understand this
‘incongruity’. The great commission is built upon two pillars:
One is to see and acknowledge your own ambivalence: you
believe but you also struggle to believe. You acknowledge your
own inability – you only build on and live by grace alone. When
we internalise this attitude we will no longer handle or view or
approach those who are still outside with prejudice. The second
pillar is taking, what Paul Tillich (1948:118) called the ‘protestant
principle’, serious: The protestant principle is to scrutinise all
traditions, cultural and denominational, in light of the gospel. It
means to see ourselves as in this world, but not part of it in the
sense that the ethos of the world becomes our ‘gospel’. This can
only happen when the manifesto of Jesus – (what Paul calls the
‘law of Christ’) – is in the centre of our lives. Jesus summarised it
as loving God and loving the other as we love ourselves. (cf. Van
Aarde 2006:117–118)
How would this broken and vulnerable group have heard
the words of Jesus in Matthew 28:18–20? It is the last time we
hear of the disciples in this Gospel. It is the end of the Gospel.
Exegesis asks: What happened to them before this grand finale?
They ran away from the cross while a few courageous women
brought them the news of the inal victory of the resurrection …
We would have expected a change. But Matthew’s account is the
same old story: some of the disciples who wanted to walk on the
water with him, but could not; who wanted to be in Gethsemane
with him but could not stay awake; who wanted to go to
Golgotha with him but could not, are now, even though they
worship him, still in doubt! It is [sic] such stumbling followers
(disciples) that listen to the manifesto. And what echo’s in our
ears is the ambivalence of believing and ‘doubting at the same time
(Matt 14:31; 28:17).’ (Van Aarde 2006:113)
This imperfect ‘church’ hears the commission. The verb ‘to go’
(poreuthentes – Mt 28:19) they heard is not a strong verb – not
in the grammatical form of a command, but an ininitive. It
is like ‘I am going to eat’. Not to be understood as command:
GO and eat! What is imperative in what they hear is ‘make
disciples (mathet̄eusate), make the church one large school of
Jesus followers’ (Van Aarde 2006:114; also cf. Wilson 1979).
doi:10.4102/hts.v71i3.2940
Page 6 of 11
Original Research
disciple’ is literally ‘to accompany’ or ‘to go along with’ or ’to
be in the group of’. Louw and Nida (1988:471) also state that the
verb means to ‘cause people to become followers ... In order to
avoid a wrong implication of a causative it may be important to
use such expression to ‘convince them to become disciples’ or
‘urge them to be my disciples’. (Nel 2009:2 of 11, [italics mine])
How should we then hear it? In the words of Van Aarde
(2006) we should:
[I]nternalise in a confessional way the message of Matthew.
We should invite anyone (all) in an unconditional way to come
and share this confession with us: the confession that God, in
and through Jesus of Nazareth – Christ the Lord, the victorious
Son of Man – is God-with-us. He is with us as long as there
will be days, and as long as we do what Jesus, in love, did and
taught. (p. 117)
Reforming and transforming local
faith communiies into disciplemaking movements
I still believe that this is a critical issue. Faith communities
need to continuously rediscover the meaning of being
disciples of Christ, the Lord. In a recent publication Smit,
(2014: position 203 of 1327) on the letter of James, wrote:
In the tradition of Bonnhoefer and Kierkegaard we often
distinguish between admirers, learners (pupils) and disciples
of Jesus. Admirers are those who respect the life and teachings
of Jesus and may even often quote these. They admire him as
the best among men and like to listen to his words. Pupils are
people who study his teachings, they know these teachings
inside out, can talk about them and even teach them. Disciples
are those whose life is destiny bound with Christ, whose life has
been touched and changed by him and his Spirit, people who
no longer live for themselves but for him and for others. (Freely
translated from the original Afrikaans by author)
What will we have to change in our Christian education
(teaching and learning) for youth ministry to reform and
transform local faith communities into disciple-making
movements? It is this question that to my mind takes my
previous (Nel 2009) article further. I have argued the case
that the making of disciples at least covers the following:
We need to recover (and stop devaluaing) the
concept of discipleship
Therefore, New Testament discipleship reminds us of the
Old Testament bond between God and his people. What
distinguishes New Testament discipleship is the Person and
Work of Jesus, who calls people to become his disciples. While
the initiative in Rabbinic Judaism lay with the individual
to join the righteous (with the pupil choosing the rabbi),
it is Jesus himself who saw, chose, and called his pupils.
Although there are examples of such occurrences in Greek
literature, it remains a dimension unique to the Gospels. The
accent is exclusively on the person of Jesus, with the truth
explaining the strong emphasis on his words in the context
of discipleship (cf. Jn 8:31, 15). After the Resurrection, too,
the disciples rallied round the risen Person of the Christ
(and his words). While rabbis and Greek philosophers
all presented a speciic subject to their pupils, Jesus Christ
presents (sacriices) himself. Two things constitute biblical
discipleship:
• acceptance into a personal relationship with Him who
calls you to belong to Him; and
• a vocation, which means that you have to be a follower
and pupil of the Christ who has called you. (Nel 2009:
2 of 11; also cf. Rengstorf 1967:446).
In my article (2009) I summarised it as follows:
In other words, according to Rengstorf (1967:406), Jesus’s
concern is not to impart information, nor to deepen an existing
attitude, but to awaken unconditional commitment to Himself.
That mathytys, as akolouthein, is also manthanein, is self-evident
(Mt 11:29). In contrast to both Rabbi Akiba and the philosopher
Socrates ‘Jesus binds exclusively to Himself’ (Rengstorf
1967:447). In addition, according to Louw and Nida (1988:
470–471), the verb ‘to make disciples’ (mathyteusate) refers to
disciple in the sense of adhering to the teachings or instructions
of a leader and promoting the cause of such a leader ... In many
languages the equivalent of ‘to follow’ (in the sense of ‘to be a
htp://www.hts.org.za
Stoppels (2013:78ff.) states that he is convinced that there are
good grounds to think about building up local churches from
the viewpoint of discipleship. I did so myself in 1994 already
(Nel 1994:83–96, 2004:97–111). Stoppels (2013:78ff.) describes
discipleship from 10 perspectives. It seems necessary to me to
help local faith communities to get a good understanding of
these multiple perspectives:
Discipleship:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
presupposes community
puts us on a road of being a counter voice
takes us out of serving the church
makes one what is divided
puts us on a journey of growth
asks for discipline
uniies humble leaders and humble (modest) ordinary
members3
• is not for consumers
• should not be confused with religious virtuosity
• is like a boomerang for the church’s offer (p. 78ff.).
‘We’ have to change: only disciples can make
disciples …
In light of my description of the church in the previous point
it can be expected that I will argue that the irst that will have
to change is ‘us’. Only disciples can make disciples, who
will also make disciples, who will make disciples … until
3.In the conversaion with Darrell Guder (2014) referred to below he answered
a quesion concerning leadership in the missional challenge as follows: ‘I think
the irst thing is that we must become trusted conversaion partners of our
congregaions. To use Presbyterian lingo here, the teaching elder, the theological
servant of the church, has got to liberate herself or himself from any suggesion of
spiritual superiority, of any kind of priestly specialness that makes us into a special
caste of Chrisians. We need to be brothers and sisters of our congregaion, friends,
empatheic learners with them, of the reality of the world in which God has sent
us. We have to earn the right to be heard as a biblical and theologically informed
friend and conversaion partner. That trust has to develop so that together we can
understand the challenges that society presents to us.’
doi:10.4102/hts.v71i3.2940
Page 7 of 11
Jesus comes again. The rhythm can only be restored when
faith communities are being reformed and transformed,
rediscovering their own disciple identity (cf. Nel 2015).
Previously I (Nel 2009) have phrased this as follows:
Only if we are the invitation, dare we extend the invitation …
Inevitably, some are closer to the young than others: Parents,
whether separated or together, divorced or widowed, broken or
in the healing process, are ideally situated to be the invitation.
Whoever is related to a child has a God-given relational
(covenantal) opportunity to be the invitation. (p. 7 of 11)
Making disciples in youth ministry is far more than just
another program or a few adaptations to what and how we
teach. Dean (1998:25–39) calls it a movement from ‘programs
to people’. I am convinced that when we rediscover and
recover our identity as disciples we reform and transform
our faith communities. We do so in a faithful and in a
somewhat natural way because we grow in understanding
(hermeneutical work of the Spirit through Word, Sacrament
and community) of who God is and who we are. We also
transform and reform by way of a more intentional systemic
process. In this process of rediscovering we will have to start
small by preaching and teaching about our identity, trusting
God that he will call people anew to an understanding of
being called in. Being called to identifying with him, allowing
him to continually change ‘us’ into the likeness of the Son
(cf. 2 Cor 3:18–20). In missional literature there are so many
important pointers on how to develop such a church. What I
add is in a sense a dimension that to my mind is not covered
suficiently in the current discussion. We purposefully have
to focus on the recovery of our very being, being learners.
‘The missional church is a community where all members
are involved in learning to become disciples of Jesus’
(Barrett 2004:160). In rediscovering missional identity we
need to rediscover and recover that we learn how to live
life faithfully – the Christ way. Osmer (1990) once said that
often when we want to recover something we irst have to
rediscover what we have lost:
Rediscovery is the activity of discerning once again the meaning
and power of tradition that has been repressed or forgotten.
Recovery goes further. It involves the positive evaluation and
appropriation of that tradition, using what has been rediscovered
to structure present patterns of thought and action. (p. 141)
This is indeed my understanding of reformation and
transformation. This takes time and lots of ministerial energy
(cf. also Dean 1998:35 for her ‘continuum for youth ministry’).
We can do this at a time that there is new energy to be sincere
about who we are. Brueggemann (2006) already wrote:
Does it strike you that congregational life for the most part is
remote from such deeply rooted, biblical understandings of
discipleship and evangelism? Well, yes. Much congregational life
has so fuzzied the claims of the Gospel in order to accommodate
to culture that the church, only with dificulty, can be a truthteller in the face of denial and a hope-teller in the face of despair.
It is clear now, is it not, that this is a new time in the church.
It is a time when many people, with deep ambiguity, want an
htp://www.hts.org.za
Original Research
alternative with a deep sense that dominant patterns of life in
our society simply are not working. There is a hunch and a wish,
guarded to be sure, that the church should let the news, with
all its implications, has [sic] its say. Such a say depends upon
preachers who risk, supported by congregations who will stand
by in solidarity. (p. 112)
And earlier Brueggemann (2006)) stated:
The disciplines function to inconvenience us enough that we
become conscious, self-conscious, and intentionally aware of
who we are and what we are doing with our lives ... I submit that
only those who are inconvenienced enough to be intentional will
have the energy for mission. (p. 109)
Stoppels (2013) right through his book is arguing a case for
rediscovery and recovery of this biblical truth. He (2013:
64–67) motivates his choice for discipleship in four ways.
The irst being the central place of the concept and metaphor
in the New Testament. He (p. 63) links up with a quote
from Bonhoeffer (2001:59): ‘Christianity without the living
Christ is inevitably Christianity without discipleship and
Christianity without discipleship is always Christianity
without Christ. It remains an abstract idea, a myth.’ As
already noted Stoppels (2013:16–17) calls it ‘the ecclesial turn’.
In his relection (2013:42–45) on what he calls a sociological
perspective, he mentions the importance of the community
of disciples – because ‘people need other people to stay
actively faithful to life-convictions, even when this is not in
line with common sense (his italics) in the present society.’ In
more than one way he argues for the church to be such a
community where we are disciples and are involved in the
making of disciples – however, this may not be the ‘in’ thing
in an individualistic society. In describing his ecclesiological
viewpoints he relects on the relationship between individual
and community (Stoppels 2013:50–52). His conviction is
that we may miss something in the ‘shop behavior’ and
consumer mentality of individuals. What they do ‘desire’
(‘verlangens’) is ‘sincere forms of a faith community, a space
where they experience God and real mutual relationship
with one another.’4 Stoppels (2013:99ff.) is convinced that
two important issues that go together are: ‘community
formation and discipleship’. He (2013:24–38) enters into a
discussion with well-known scholars like Heitink (2007) and
Hendriks (2008) and a number of others. After a paragraph
on ‘Arguments for a Counter Culture’ he (2013) wrote, with
reference to Henk de Roest (2010:77), that:
[The] church always and in principle has her center, her core, her
‘middle point’ outside of herself. Therefor when she is close to
her center, she is evenly outside of herself. (p. 48)
He (p. 48) then continues to say: ‘discipleship places the
church in that sense outside of itself and in this sense the
church can become more herself’.5 In a very recent interview
4.My free translaion of ‘waarachige vormen van geloofsgemeenschap, naar een plek
waar God ervaarbaar wordt en de onderlinge gemeenschap voelbaar.’
5.My free translaion of ‘zij heete haar centrum, haar kern, haar midden, alijd en
principieel buiten zichzelf. Derhalwe, wanneer zij dichtbij haar kern is, is zij even
buiten zichzelf’ and of ‘Dsicipelschap plaats the kerk in zekere zin buiten zichzelf en
juist zo kan de kerk meer en meer zichzelf worden.’
doi:10.4102/hts.v71i3.2940
Page 8 of 11
Guder (2014) responded to a question concerning challenges
in the missional conversation:
I also have to say, when you begin digging more deeply into our
missionary vocation, then the resistances begin to surface. We
encounter in the Scriptures a dificult gospel, because it means
that we must recognize our own captivities, we must recognize
that there are many ways that North American culture opposes
Christian living, and we must deal with that. We don’t like that.
We don’t like to be on the margins, but we are a minority. So
how do we get used to being a minority and then function with
freedom and joy as Christian witnesses, knowing that there are
many things that we are doing and concerned with that our
society does not particularly welcome? (n.p.)
The conversion of the ‘we’ has never been easy.
Disciple everyone involved in youth ministry
While continuing this process of developing ‘missionary
discipleship’ (Bosch 1991:79) youth ministry can be
transformed by intentionally discipling all the members
involved in youth ministry. I think especially of the parents
and ‘volunteers’ (both younger and older) involved in
Christian education. Missional churches must rethink what
they do in faith development. Dick (2007) describes the
situation as follows:
Promoting a love of learning and developmental plans are high
priorities in vital congregations. Vital churches have a clear
picture of what it means to be a Christian believer, a Christian
disciple, a Christian leader, and the body of Christ. (p. 118)
Youth ministry often did not take this seriously enough. We
have allowed people to be involved who were not serious
(at least not enough) about their own ‘being in Christ’ and
with discipling children and adolescents. Campolo wrote in
1995 (p. 133) already: ‘Of all the failures of mainline churches
over the last three decades, none has been more pronounced
than their failure in Youth ministry.’ Being a faithful learner,
follower, and disciple of Christ is a prerequisite for being
involved in any form of youth ministry.
This may even be more speciically true for teaching in youth
ministry. No one doubts that youth ministry has always been,
still is and should be educational in tone. What went wrong
is that this basic notion has often taken a ‘scholastics’ turn.
And as such it is no longer in ministry terms educational.
When teaching is not relational, it has almost no place in
youth ministry. It certainly will not be ‘cultivating a life of
active discipleship’ (Osmer 2012:34). My conviction is that
many books that are indeed helping us with teaching (cf.
for example two such good books Lambert 2004; Rothnagel,
Schlag & Schweitzer 2014) are very pedagogical in approach.
Teaching should be pedagogically grounded and in a
scientiic way be educationally sound, but how will it differ
if we do not just ‘teach’ pedagogically correct but, within a
relationship of love and acceptance, make disciples through
our teaching? I believe this lies more on an attitudinal and
cultural level than on a pedagogical level. Osmer (2008:178),
with reference to Quinn (1996:201), thinks that ‘deep change’
htp://www.hts.org.za
Original Research
lies in a change in ‘identity, mission, culture, and operational
procedures.’ It is my conviction that what we need in the
case under discussion is a change in culture within missional
and disciple-making churches. One example: It may be wise
and show forth our change in culture when we do not refer
to ‘classes’ anymore but to youth groups – where inclusive
relationships of love and acceptance are as important (if
not more) than the content we need to teach correctly –or
as Lambert (2004:11–36) calls it ‘holistic teaching’ (cf. also
Borgman 2013:269–287).
What will be characteristic of congregations where the
understanding is growing that they are learning communities?
This may help us to understand how we intentionally can
change the culture that will beneit disciple-making in
youth ministry. I want to stay true to my intention to draw
Stoppels (2013: 136–140) into this discussion again. He refers
to research by the Indianapolis Center for Congregations
(2012) (see for the website in the bibliography) where seven
elements are named that will ‘enhance the learning potential
of faith communities’ (p. 136):
• congregations that learn well ind and use outside
resources
• congregations that learn well live within a worldview of
theological coherence
• congregations that learn well ask open-ended questions
and practice active listening
• congregations learn well when clergy and laity learn
together
• congregations learn well by attending to rites of passage
• congregations learn well when they slow things down
• congregations learn well when they say ‘no’ and when
they say ‘yes’. (‘without sincere priorities and clear
choices [even when sometimes painful] no church sails well’)
(Stoppels 2013:140).6
The issue at stake in this paragraph is: Only involve and
employ ‘volunteers’ in youth ministry who are serious about
their discipleship. I have tried above to ‘outline’ what kind
of faith community or congregation will be such a fertile
ground to supply this quality of volunteers. Congregations
who are serious about the gospel of the Kingdom as they live
by the ethos of the King will do so. Stoppels (2013:117–118)
points out that this is more than looking for people who
are actively involved, especially in the worship services –
the typical evaluation of membership. We should look for
a different expectation: An expectation that has to do with
‘the teachability of people and their openness for a speciic
lifestyle based on and seeking for the Kingdom of God’7 (cf.
also Osmer 1990:52 and his reference to a prayer of John Calvin
that God may bring his mind to a ‘teachable frame’). With
references to De Roest (2010:167) and to Wolsheimer (2012)
Stoppels (2013:117–118) discusses this ‘seriousness’ about
6.My free translaion of ‘Zonder echte prioriteiten en heldere keuzes (ook al zijn ze
soms pijnlijk) vaart geen kerk wel.’
7.My free translaion of ‘verwachingen die te maken hebben met de leerbereidheid
van mensen en hun openheid voor een bepaalde levensijl die gefundeerd is op en
leidt naar het Rijk Gods.’
doi:10.4102/hts.v71i3.2940
Page 9 of 11
who we are in Christ. We live by a discipline that lows from
our discipleship. De Roest translated the disciplina arcani as
the ‘secret rule of life’.8 And while Wolheimer acknowledges
the importance of a confession of faith, he thinks that the
church has a higher level of need for a confession of life.9
Wolheimer (2012:103) discerns eight ‘ields of attention’
(‘aandachtsvelden’): ‘seeking God (will), prayer, work, study,
spiritual community, caring for your body, caring for other,
and hospitality’ (cf. Stoppels 2013:118).
This is the Rule we embrace. This is the Rule we will keep: we
say yes to availability; we say yes to vulnerability… A rule is
basically a way of life, not a book. (Wolsheimer 2012:110; cf.
‘What kind of ‘people’ are best suited to make disciples in youth
ministry – being before doing’ above)
My conviction is that there is no way to reform and transform
local churches or reform and transform youth ministry other
than by taking our God-given identity as vulnerable people
saved by grace serious, very serious. Even our leaders in local
churches, especially the trained theologians, should make a
clear choice about their core contribution: Are they fulilling
often odd jobs or are they equipping (as they grow themselves)
the core membership to ‘as they go, make disciples …’? (cf.
Stoppels 2013:60ff. for his discussion on where leaders should
focus: the margins or on ‘the core’ [‘de kern’]?)
A re-evaluaion of individuaion
Lastly I would like to focus on one more dimension of
ministry that might help us transform youth ministry and
thereby faith communities into disciple-making movements.
Clark (2001:47–51) describes ‘individuation (as) a key to
understanding adolescent development.’ However true that
might be, and it is, we will have to, more intentionally, help
everyone involved in human development (the parent(s) who
‘carried’ them, brought them into the life given by God and
everyone else along the line) to realise that we never meant
by ‘individuation’, individualisation. Within a culture where
individuality and individualism have become the new gods
we need to make a special effort to counter this dehumanising
tendency in culture and, almost subconsciously, in youth
ministry. Jung (1971:448) who worked with this concept refers
to individuation as ‘a process of differentiation, having for its
goal the development of the individual personality.’ In my
article on ‘Youth ministry: a challenge of individuation’ (Nel
2003:151–196) I have tried to point out (in close relationship
with the work of Osmer (1996:9–26) that a theological
perspective on ‘individuality’, individualisation and
individuation are necessary in youth ministry. We certainly
do not want to support the very nature of our sinful nature –
‘doing and having it my way’. Our very creation challenges
this way of being human: We were born from ‘two people
knowing’ one another; we were born (or were supposed to
be born) into a small community of love and caring; within a
cultural unit; a national community; and in our case, a faith
8.My free translaion of ‘leefregel voor het geheim.’
9.My free translaion of ‘Geloobelijdeni’ en ‘levensbelijdenis’.
htp://www.hts.org.za
Original Research
community. In South African culture the following saying
is well known: ‘umuntu ngumuntu ngabanye’! (isiZulu for
‘humans are humans through other humans’ – with reference
to ‘interdependency’). Two older scholars have said it so well.
Firet (1986:145ff.) and Allport (1961:33) point to our becoming
and what role our original system (DNA) and the society play.
Allport said: ‘personality= f (inheritance) x society’ (1961:33).
We were born for community, and in communion with others
we lourish and become our true self. Böggeman (1985:108)
describes a ‘selbständige Persönlichkeit’ as having autonomy,
sociability, productivity, sexuality, and creativity in balance
(also cf. Borgman 2013:102–113).
This process of becoming the self, in a theological sense, will
be enhanced by a serious effort to involve people who have
been on the journey longer with each child and adolescent.
Dean (1998:41–54) calls this person a ‘Godbearer’. She
rightfully refers to what I argued above namely that such
a ‘Godbearing Life’ has certain ‘ingredients’ (Dean 1998:
105–138). Part of it is a ‘circle of friends: inviting spiritual
friendships’ (p. 123). Osmer (1996:202–210) pleaded for
a mentor in the life of adolescents in the conirmation
group. Even where fathers and/or mothers cannot be
the early church ‘sponsors’ or ‘godparents’, disciplemaking churches should ind other mentors to fulil the
role of spiritual mentoring in conirmation. In literature
more speciic focused on discipling, mentoring is also an
important concept. Gibbs (2012) refers to it in the following
way:
Christian character needs time to develop and mature
for the gifts to be expressed appropriately. There will be
missteps along the way, and early attempts may not be that
impressive. Each person requires training, mentoring and
honest evaluation. (p. 153)
Ogden (2003:123–129) describes this notion as part of
what he calls a discipling relationship: ‘Missing from this
approach is the priority of relationships’ (p. 123). Discipling
relationships:
• ‘are marked by intimacy, whereas programs tend to be
focuses on information’ (p. 124)
• ‘involve full, mutual responsibility of the participants,
whereas programs have one or a few who do on behalf of
the many’ (p. 125)
• ‘are customized to the unique growth process of the
individuals, whereas programs emphasize synchronization
and regimentation’ (p. 125) (also cf. Borgman 2013:83–101)
• ‘focus accountability around life change, whereas
programs focus accountability around content. Growth
into Christlikeness is the ultimate goal’ (p. 126)
• ‘are centered on incorporating the life of Jesus in all we
are in the context of all that we do’(p. 126).
Ogden (2003:127–129) continues by stating:
In an impersonal world, people hunger for intimacy, personal
care, deep friendship and spiritual bonding. This is particularly
true for men … It takes time … This means having enough vision
to think small. (p. 127)
doi:10.4102/hts.v71i3.2940
Page 10 of 11
In the model he (Ogden 2003) proposes:
[T]hree people journey together for a year to a year and a half
while they grow toward maturity and being equipped to disciple
others. As this relationship comes to a close, the challenge comes
to each person to invite two others into the same walk of faith
and then reproduce, and so on. Over the ive- to seven-year
period of multiplying discipleship triads, it is common to have
eight to a hundred or more people who have been carefully
groomed in the context of an intimate relationship. This number
of self-initiating, reproducing disciples has a tremendous impact
on the climate of ministry. It takes only 10 to 20 percent of a
congregation to set the tone for the whole. Invest in those who
will set the pace for the rest. At the same time one’s leadership
based is greatly expanded. (p. 128)
Youth ministry is an inclusive congregational ministry and
every differentiated part of it should be saturated with this
relational attitude: I am because and only when we are (cf.
Nel 2000:77–97). We therefore need to intentionally build
relational structures in youth ministry that will be discipling
in a truly biblical way. Root (2007:205–207) wrote in a
paragraph on spiritual growth, discipleship and vocation:
Therefore, relationships of place-sharing can provide the context
for understanding and participating in discipleship in the faith
community, for discipleship is born of uniting with one another as
together we follow Christ. (p. 206, [italics original])
And again ‘catechesis can be done within social relationships
between adult and adolescent’ (Root 2007:208). Ogden (1998,
2003) focuses on the relational and corporative essence of
the church: ‘The church of Jesus Christ is nothing less than
his corporate replacement on earth. Jesus continues his
incarnation by dwelling in his people’ (Ogden 2003:31). The
plural, the us, has to be discovered. Dick (2007:92) reports on
a study in 717 congregations: ‘“We” is the word spoken most
frequently in vital congregations.’ In disciple-making this we
starts with the parent or parents. Nelson and Jones (2011)
noted, to my mind correctly:
Family ministry is the process of intentionally and persistently
coordinating a congregation’s proclamation and practices so
that parents are acknowledged, trained, and held accountable
as primary disciple-makers in their children’s lives. (p. 15) (also
cf. Freudenburg & Lawrence 1998)
Original Research
fertile learning processes. Thus the local faith community
becomes a space to practice how to live life, learning from the
Christ within a discipleship community. Here ‘we’ are serious
about the Christ secret: being called and being challenged:
‘If anyone would come after me, he must deny himself and
take up his cross and follow me.’ (Mt 16:24ff.). According
to the Gospels this is the only way to have a life – a life so
full that it is worth dying for. In a chapter on ‘Something to
die for’ Dean (2004:29–53) describes in a profound way that
adolescents may be ‘dying for something worth dying for’
(pp. 30–32). I would also relate her description of mimesis
(p. 45ff.) to my understanding of a life of discipleship. We are
after all, as Dean (2004:43) points out not challenged to suffer
for Christ, but ‘to love [her italics] in Christ’s name.’ We are
teaching and learning in our space of practice (‘oefenruimte’
Stoppels 2103) so much so that ‘his desires become our
desires, and his story becomes our story’ (Dean 2004:51).
Folmsbee (2007:39) refers to re-culturing youth discipleship
and remarks that ‘discipleship is not solely about learning
more about God. It is about learning how to live one’s life to
glorify God’ (also quoted by Weber 2014:80):
Imagine we help youth to:
• celebrate inclusion,
• celebrate learning how to live life and
• celebrate developing (however challenging) a sensitivity
to choose what matters most in life (cf. Phlp 1:9–11)!!!
Acknowledgements
Compeing interests
The author declares that he has no inancial or personal
relationships which may have inappropriately inluenced
him in writing this article.
References
Allport, G.W., 1961, Patern and growth in personality, Holt, Rinehart &Winston,
New York, NY.
Armstrong, R.S., 1979, Service evangelism, Westminster, Philadelphia, PA.
Barth, K., 1932, ‘Die Theologie und die Mission in der Gegenwart’, Zwischen den Zeiten
10, 189–215.
Barth, K., [1956] 1960, The humanity of God, transl. J.N. Thomas from the original
Die Menschlichkeit Gotes (Theologische Studien), Zollikon- Z̈rich: Evangelischer
Verlag. John Knox, Richmond, VA.
Barret, L., 2004, Treasure in clay jars: Paterns in missional faithfulness, Eerdmans,
Grand Rapids, MI.
In conclusion
Stoppels (2013:129) refers to Breen and Cockram (2009:23ff.),
stating that in disciple-making communities the modes of
ministry will be operational. Firstly will be classical training
and educational opportunities and ministries. (I can almost
hear the call from Ephesians 4:11–16: inally someone gets it.
It is about training the faithful to be equipped for ministry,
in this case the development of a missional). The second mode
is the stage of ‘apprenticeship’ – the original meaning of the
concept of mathytys. We learn by walking with the other
and by ‘on the job training’. The third mode is about being
immersed in a new culture where you almost do not even
know that you learn – like learning your home language. The
three should function in combination, thus creating the most
htp://www.hts.org.za
Barret, L., 2006, ‘Deining missional Church,’ in J.R. Krabill, W. Sawatsky & C.E. Van
Engen (eds.), Evangelical, ecumenical, and Anabapist missiologies in conversaion:
Essays in Honor of Wilbert R. Shenk, pp. 177–183, Orbis Books, Maryknoll, NY.
Blauw, J., 1962, The missionary nature of the Church, Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, MI.
Böggeman, W., 1985, Jugendfreizeit und Jugendarbeit in der Krise: Lebenswelt junger
Menschen als Perspekive für eine ofene Jugendarbeit, Ferdinand Schöningh,
M̈nchen.
Bonhoefer, D., 2001, The cost of discipleship, SCM Press, London.
Borgman, D., 2013, Foundaions for youth ministry: Theological engagement with
teen life and culture, Baker, Grand Rapids, MI.
Bosch, D.J., 1991, Transforming mission: Paradigm shits in theology of mission, Orbis,
Mariknoll, NY.
Breen, M., & Cockram, S., 2009, Building a discipling culture, Zondervan, Grand
Rapids, MI.
Brueggemann, W., 2006, The Word that redescribes the world: The Bible and
discipleship, Fortress Press, Minneapolis, MN.
Bruner, F.D., 1990, Mathew, vol. 2, the churchbook: Mathew 13–28, Word Publishing,
Dallas, TX.
doi:10.4102/hts.v71i3.2940
Page 11 of 11
Original Research
Campolo, T., 1995, Can mainline denominaions make a comeback?, Judson, Valley
Forge, PA.
Nel, M., 2007, ‘Responsible evangelism in the presence of God: A theological
relecion’, Pracical Theology in South Africa 22(1), 98–117.
Center for Congregaions (Indianapolis), 2012, How your congregaion learns, viewed
19 November 2014, from htp://centerforcongregaions.org/resource/how-yourcongregaion-learns
Nel, M., 2009, ‘Inviing and iniiaing youth into a life of discipleship’, Verbum et
Ecclesia 30(2), Art. #344, 11 pages. htp://dx.doi.org/10.4102/ve.v30i2.344
Clark, C., 2001, ‘The changing face of adolescence: A theological view of human
development’, in K.C. Dean, C. Clark& D. Rahn (eds.), Staring right: Thinking
theologically about youth ministry, pp. 41–62, Zondervan, Grand Rapids, MI.
Nel, M., 2015, Idenity driven Churches: Who are we and where are we going?,
BibleMedia, Wellington.
Clark, D., 2005, Breaking the mould of Christendom: Kingdom community, diaconal
church and the liberaion of the laity, Epworth, Werrington.
Nelson, B. & Jones, T.P., 2011, ‘Introducion: The problem with family ministry,’
in R. Sinson & T.P. Jones (eds.), Trained in the fear of God. Family ministry in
theological, historical, and pracical perspecive, pp. 13–29, Kregel Publicaions,
Grand Rapids, MI. htp://dx.doi.org/10.1021/bk-2011-1064.ch001
Dean, K.C., 1998, The Godbearing life: The art of soul tending for youth ministry,
Upper Room, Nashville, TN.
Ogden, G., 1998, Discipleship essenials: A Guide to building your life in Christ,
InterVarsity Press, Downers Grove, IL.
Dean, K.C., Clark, C. & Rahn, D., 2001, Staring right: Thinking theologically about
youth ministry, Zondervan, Youth Specialies, Grand Rapids, MI.
Ogden, G., 2003, Transforming discipleship: Making disciples a few at a ime,
InterVarsity, Downers Grove, IL.
Dean, K.C., 2004, Pracicing passion: Youth and the quest for a passionate church,
Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, MI.
Osmer, R.R., 1990, A teachable spirit: Recovering the teaching oice in the church,
Westminster John Knox, Louisville, KY.
De Roest, H., 2010, Een huis voor de ziel: Gedachten over de kerk voor binne en buiten,
Meinema, Zoetermeer.
Osmer, R.R., 1996, A teachable spirit: Recovering the teaching oice in the Church,
Westminster/John Knox, Louisville, KY.
Dick, D.R., 2007, Vital signs: A pathway to congregaional wholeness, Discipleship
Resources, Nashville, T.N.
Osmer, R.R., 2008, Pracical theology: An introducion, Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, MI.
Easum, W.M., 2001, Unfreezing moves: Following Jesus into the mission ield,
Abingdon, Nashville, TN.
Firet, J., 1986, Dynamics in Pastoring, Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, MI.
Folmsbee, C., 2007, A new kind of youth ministry, Zondervan, Grand Rapids, MI.
Freudenburg, B. & Lawrence, R., 1998, The family friendly Church, Group, Loveland,
CO.
Gibbs, E., 2012, The journey of Ministry: Insights from a life of pracice, InterVarsity,
Downers Grove, IL.
Giins, A.J., 2008, Called to be sent: Co-missioned as disciples today, Liguori
Publicaions, Liguori, MO.
Guder, D.L., 2000, The coninuing conversion of the Church, Eerdmans, Grand Rapids,
MI.
Guder, D.L., 2014, ‘A missional conversaion with Darrell Guder. A conversaion on
missional church between Guder and Forge Canada’, viewed 10 March 2015, from
htp://www.forgecanada.ca/a-conversaion-with-darrell-guder/
Heiink, G., 2007, Een kerk met karakter: Tijd voor heroriëntaie, Kok, Kampen.
Hendriks, J., 2008, Verlangen en vertrouwen: Het hart van gemeenteopbouw, Kok,
Kampen.
Jung, C.G., 1971, Personality types, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.
Lambert, D., 2004, Teaching that makes a diference: How to teach for holisic impact,
Zondervan, Youth Specialies, Grand Rapids, MI.
Lohmeyer, E., 1967, Das Evangelium des Mathaüs, W. Smauch (Hrsg.), 4. Aul.,
Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, Göingen.
Louw, J.P. & Nida, E.A. (eds.), 1988, Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament: Based
on semanic domains, United Bible Socieies, New York, NY.
Malphurs, A., 2007, A new kind of Church: Understanding models of ministry for the
21st Century, Baker Books, Grand Rapids, MI.
McLaren, B.D., [1998] 2000, The church on the other side: Doing ministry in the
postmodern matrix, Zondervan, Grand Rapids, MI. (The 1998 publicaion was
itled Reinvening your church.)
McPhee, A. 2006, ‘Authenic witness, authenic evangelism, authenic church’, in
J.R. Krabill, W. Sawatsky & C.E. Van Engen (eds.), Evangelical, ecumenical, and
anabapist missiologies in conversaion: Essays in honor of Wilbert R. Shenk,
pp. 130–139, Orbis, Maryknoll, NY.
Nel, M., 1994, Gemeentebou, Orion, Pretoria.
Nel, M., 1997–1998, ‘Service evangelism: A style where theology and methodology
meets’, Internaional Journal for Evangelism in Theological Educaion 13, 31–42.
Nel, M., 2000, Youth Ministry: An inclusive congregaional approach, Malan Nel and
Design Books, Pretoria.
Nel, M., 2002, ‘“Serving them back”: Youth evangelism in a secular and
postmodern world’, Journal of Youth and Theology 1(1), 65–87. htp://dx.doi.
org/10.1163/24055093-90000090
Osmer, R.R., 2012, ‘Formaion in the missional Church: Building deep connecions
between ministries of Upbuilding and Sending’, in D.J. Zscheile (ed.), Culivaing
sent communiies: Missional spiritual formaion, pp. 29–55, Eerdsmans, Grand
Rapids, MI.
Ot, C. & Wilson, G., 2011, Global church planing: Biblical principles and best pracices
for muliplicaion, Baker Academic, Grand Rapids, MI.
Quinn, R.E., 1996, Deep change: Discovering the leader within, Jossey-Bass, San
Francisco, CA.
Putman, R.D., 2000, Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community,
Simon & Schuster, New York, NY.
Rengstorf, K.H., 1967, s.v. ‘Mantanou’, in G. Kitel, Theological dicionary on the new
testament, transl. G.W. Bromiley, Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, MI, vol. 4, pp. 390–461.
Rothnagel, M., Schlag, T. & Schweitzer, F. (eds.), 2014, Basics of religious educaion,
Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, Göingen.
Root, A., 2007, Revisiing relaional youth ministry: From a strategy of inluence to a
theology of incarnaion, InterVarsity Press, Downers Grove, IL.
Schlater, A., [1933] 1963, Der Evangelist Mathaüs: Seine Sprache, sein Ziel, seine
Selbständigkeit: Eine Kommentar zum ersten Evangelium, 6. Aul., Calwer Verlag,
Stutgart.
Seibel, C.L. & Nel, M., 2010, ‘Generaion X, intergeneraional jusice and the renewal
of the tradiioning process’, HTS Teologiese Studies/ Theological Studies 66(2), Art.
#876, 7 pages. htp://dx.doi.org10.4102/hts.v66i2.876
Sjogren, S., 1993, Conspiracy of kindness, Vine Books, Ann Arbor, MI.
Sjogren, S., 2002, The perfectly imperfect Church: Redeining the ‘‘Ideal’’ Church,
Flagship Church Resources, Loveland, CO.
Smit, D., 2014, Wat sien ons in die spieël?, Kindle edn., Lux Verbi, Kaapstad.
Stoppels, S., 2013, Oefenruimte. Gemeente en Parochie als gemeenschap van
leerlingen, Boekencentrum, Zoetermeer.
Tillich, P., 1948, The protestant era, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.
Trilling, W., 1969, ‘Die Auferstehung Jesu: Anfang der neuen Weltzeit (Mt 28:1–8)’, in
W. Trilling (Hrsg.), Christusverkündigung in den synopischen Evangelien: Beispiele
gatungsgemässer Auslegung, Kösel Verlag, M̈nchen.
Van Aarde, A.G., 2006, ‘Hoe om in te kom en hoe om binne te bly – die ‘groot
sendingopdrag’ aan die kerk vandag volgens Mateus 28:16–20‘, HTS Teologiese
Studies/Theological Studies 62(1), 103–122. htp://dx.doi.org/10.4102/hts.
v62i1.345
Weber, S.M., 2014, ‘Faith formaion of young people in an Evangelical context: An
empirical and theoreical study’, DTh dissertaion, Dept. of Pracical Theology,
University of Stellenbosch.
Willard, D., 1998, The divine conspiracy: Rediscovering our hidden life in God, Harper,
San Francisco, CA.
Willard, D., 2006, The great omission: Reclaiming Jesus’ essenial teachings on
discipleship, Harperone, San Francisco, CA.
Nel, M., 2003, ‘Youth Ministry: The challenge of individuaion’, Pracical Theology in
South Africa, 18(1), 151–196.
Wilson, C., 1979, With Christ in the school of disciple building, Zondervan, Grand
Rapids, MI.
Nel, M., 2004, Who are we? Understanding and inding idenity in the local church,
Malan Nel, Pretoria.
Wolsheimer, J., 2012, Tegen de draad. Wat nou, crisis? Christus!, Ark Media,
Amsterdam.
htp://www.hts.org.za
doi:10.4102/hts.v71i3.2940