I know saying this isn’t going to win me any friends, but someone has to tell the king he’s naked. Is it not a quiet madness for churches to largely outsource their discipleship (to parachurch agencies) and training (to theological colleges)? The best context for both discipleship and training is the people of God on mission (a.k.a. church).

Parachurch vs. Local Church

Take discipleship as a case in point. It’s in the context of church that we are going to learn best what it means to be a faithful follower of Jesus. Parachurch agencies do a lot of good, but they tend to draw people who share a special interest and who want similar things. By contrast, a local church is usually comprised of people from a range of backgrounds, at very different stages of development and with competing interests. It’s a fact of life that it’s far harder to get on with people like that than it is with people who have more in common. But those are precisely the people I need to make me more like Jesus. It is precisely when the church is a ragbag collection of people who aren’t like each other that “great grace” is essential, and that grace is what turns converts into disciples. The primary context for training should also be the church in situ. I find it strange that this assertion should be so contentious when the weight of the biblical evidence is behind it. Timothy was trained in gospel ministry as he went about doing gospel ministry. Paul took him under his wing, mentored and tutored him, sent him off into various situations, and talked him through whatever problems he had to deal with. The task of training is equipping people to be better gospel ministers, and an apprenticeship model in situ is the vehicle best suited for that task.