Don Davis
12-07-2007, 12:15 PM
As we train leaders to ground immature believers in the faith, one of the things I hope we can rediscover in our evangelical churches is the ancient Church's understanding of following up new believers.
The ancient tradition referred to follow-up as catachumenate, that is a process of up to three years! (in the ancient church) where new converts were essentially tutored in the basics of the Christian faith (usually in creedal form), challenged to walk in newness of life, and prepared for their entrance into the Church through baptism and holiness of new life in Christ.
Looking at what we often call "follow-up" in many churches today, especially when compared to what the Church of old did, you get the sense that we have severed grounding from churchmanship.
For us, follow-up is largely covering topics of interest for the new believer, orienting them on a host of matters that we deem essential for the new convert. Although, in our circles things tend to be idiosyncratic in application (the lists vary widely depending on the who's doing the follow-up), and although much necessary info is communicated, we tend to focus on a number of things that do not actually refer to the life of Christ per se. And, we do not climax the process of preparation with baptism into the body of believers, under pastoral care and where the gifts of the Spirit are enjoyed and shared among the body members.
My understanding more and more of follow-up is taken from Christ's commission in Matthew 28, which is to baptize and teach them to obey all that he has commanded us. In this command is presumed a working knowledge of the person of Christ, his incarnation, life, passion, death, resurrection, ascension, and return. The meaning of this narrative, of the Christ event, is the core of all Christian worship, teaching, education, social justice, and mission. The early Church grounded believers in a multi-layered approach that assumed the presence in the assembly. The heard the Christ story preached, shared in the body and blood of Christ at the Lord's Supper, heard the history of the faith in every service each week (the Ten Commandments, the Shema, the Lord's Prayer, the Creed, and the Proclaimed Word), and received ongoing instruction of the faith, but never severed from the believing community.
It's important to know that in the ancient Church follow up was never individualized; the practice of the church was to train for years until the climax of a forty day fast during the Saturday vigil before Easter, and all converts were then baptized together (along with any backslidden who had returned) on Easter Sunday. What is particularly interesting to me is that the early Church had a corporate exorcism ceremony shortly before baptism to prepare all new converts for the new life they were about to experience in the colony of God, the Church! To be a baptized believer is to literally go from one mode of life to another, from one community to another, from one society to another. Extreme, huh? It seems perfect for city folk today.
Using the Church Year (the remembrance of the life of Christ in real time, along with preaching and teaching from the lectionary) can be an effective method of grounding new believers in the life of Christ, and the Christian Story. The Revised Common Lectionary is designed that over a three year period the Church will hear the Bible read (and that means nearly all of it, virtually all of the Gospels and NT). The early Church's sense that follow up is being joined to Christ through incorporation into the believing assembly is what I want to emphasize.
For years, I and my TUMI colleagues have interpreted follow-up as the equivalent to the early Church's preparation for Baptism. Of course, the sensibility of evangelical community's would never allow today a three year follow up program that ends in an exorcism ceremony to make room for the Holy Spirit! While I do not agree with all of their demands, what you see in terms of comparison between us and them is the way in which they took entrance into the Church and Kingdom. For them, it was entering a new community which already had its confession, worship, witness, and work. Follow up was becoming one of us. And, they did not treat individuals separate from the community.
An example of this in the New Testament is 1 John: 1 John 2:18-19 (ESV) "Children, it is the last hour, and as you have heard that antichrist is coming, so now many antichrists have come. Therefore we know that it is the last hour. [19] They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us. But they went out, that it might become plain that they all are not of us." For John and the apostles, Christianity is being joined to the believing community; your are either in or out, one of us or not.
To be followed up is to come to know what it means to belong to us in Christ. It ends with public display of faith in the community in baptism, not with the end of the Bible study course. It seems to me the safe easy way to understand follow-up is to see as the early Church did; preparation for Baptism is the heart of their training of the new believer. Every convert had to confess and be prepared to defend the essentials of the Creed. Every one was tutored in the Way, and what it means to be a part of the community. Every one participated in fasting, cleansings, a new orientation to a different life. To become one of us was to participate in the life of Christ, and that is more than an intellectual or doctrinal affair. It involved the full reorientation of one's life in the life of the community, which had its own allegiance, calendar, creed, philosophy of life, and vision.
If you buy this kind of approach, you simply cannot adequately follow up if there is no church to receive and continue the life we prize together. Follow up, by definition, cannot be an individualized affair, regardless of the curricula and the concepts included. Follow up will fall short if, after the time, they remained unbaptized and unconnected to the flock. This is how we ought to teach our leaders to use curricula for grounding new Christians in the faith.
The ancient tradition referred to follow-up as catachumenate, that is a process of up to three years! (in the ancient church) where new converts were essentially tutored in the basics of the Christian faith (usually in creedal form), challenged to walk in newness of life, and prepared for their entrance into the Church through baptism and holiness of new life in Christ.
Looking at what we often call "follow-up" in many churches today, especially when compared to what the Church of old did, you get the sense that we have severed grounding from churchmanship.
For us, follow-up is largely covering topics of interest for the new believer, orienting them on a host of matters that we deem essential for the new convert. Although, in our circles things tend to be idiosyncratic in application (the lists vary widely depending on the who's doing the follow-up), and although much necessary info is communicated, we tend to focus on a number of things that do not actually refer to the life of Christ per se. And, we do not climax the process of preparation with baptism into the body of believers, under pastoral care and where the gifts of the Spirit are enjoyed and shared among the body members.
My understanding more and more of follow-up is taken from Christ's commission in Matthew 28, which is to baptize and teach them to obey all that he has commanded us. In this command is presumed a working knowledge of the person of Christ, his incarnation, life, passion, death, resurrection, ascension, and return. The meaning of this narrative, of the Christ event, is the core of all Christian worship, teaching, education, social justice, and mission. The early Church grounded believers in a multi-layered approach that assumed the presence in the assembly. The heard the Christ story preached, shared in the body and blood of Christ at the Lord's Supper, heard the history of the faith in every service each week (the Ten Commandments, the Shema, the Lord's Prayer, the Creed, and the Proclaimed Word), and received ongoing instruction of the faith, but never severed from the believing community.
It's important to know that in the ancient Church follow up was never individualized; the practice of the church was to train for years until the climax of a forty day fast during the Saturday vigil before Easter, and all converts were then baptized together (along with any backslidden who had returned) on Easter Sunday. What is particularly interesting to me is that the early Church had a corporate exorcism ceremony shortly before baptism to prepare all new converts for the new life they were about to experience in the colony of God, the Church! To be a baptized believer is to literally go from one mode of life to another, from one community to another, from one society to another. Extreme, huh? It seems perfect for city folk today.
Using the Church Year (the remembrance of the life of Christ in real time, along with preaching and teaching from the lectionary) can be an effective method of grounding new believers in the life of Christ, and the Christian Story. The Revised Common Lectionary is designed that over a three year period the Church will hear the Bible read (and that means nearly all of it, virtually all of the Gospels and NT). The early Church's sense that follow up is being joined to Christ through incorporation into the believing assembly is what I want to emphasize.
For years, I and my TUMI colleagues have interpreted follow-up as the equivalent to the early Church's preparation for Baptism. Of course, the sensibility of evangelical community's would never allow today a three year follow up program that ends in an exorcism ceremony to make room for the Holy Spirit! While I do not agree with all of their demands, what you see in terms of comparison between us and them is the way in which they took entrance into the Church and Kingdom. For them, it was entering a new community which already had its confession, worship, witness, and work. Follow up was becoming one of us. And, they did not treat individuals separate from the community.
An example of this in the New Testament is 1 John: 1 John 2:18-19 (ESV) "Children, it is the last hour, and as you have heard that antichrist is coming, so now many antichrists have come. Therefore we know that it is the last hour. [19] They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us. But they went out, that it might become plain that they all are not of us." For John and the apostles, Christianity is being joined to the believing community; your are either in or out, one of us or not.
To be followed up is to come to know what it means to belong to us in Christ. It ends with public display of faith in the community in baptism, not with the end of the Bible study course. It seems to me the safe easy way to understand follow-up is to see as the early Church did; preparation for Baptism is the heart of their training of the new believer. Every convert had to confess and be prepared to defend the essentials of the Creed. Every one was tutored in the Way, and what it means to be a part of the community. Every one participated in fasting, cleansings, a new orientation to a different life. To become one of us was to participate in the life of Christ, and that is more than an intellectual or doctrinal affair. It involved the full reorientation of one's life in the life of the community, which had its own allegiance, calendar, creed, philosophy of life, and vision.
If you buy this kind of approach, you simply cannot adequately follow up if there is no church to receive and continue the life we prize together. Follow up, by definition, cannot be an individualized affair, regardless of the curricula and the concepts included. Follow up will fall short if, after the time, they remained unbaptized and unconnected to the flock. This is how we ought to teach our leaders to use curricula for grounding new Christians in the faith.