Spare Change

Assimilate This!

Posted by Bryan

The following is a edited response to my earlier question posted at the Lifeway discussion board on leadership:

The indicators of assimilation are primarily intangible, in that they can't be marked off on a scale to show when a person has "arrived" as a disciple (or a discipler). And I also think that because measuring intangibles is so difficult, most ministers choose to only track the tangibles, if they track anything at all.

The problem with all this is, our measures (and by "our" I mean "we ministers/pastors") are quite shepherd-oriented. As such, we can see a person satisfy every item on their list, believe them to be assimilated into the culture and mission of the church, yet that person still be totally disconnected.

Here's what I'd say our list typically includes*:

• Are they enrolled, baptised, and have they joined the church?


• Do they actually participate in Bible study?


• Do we provide an atmosphere where they can build relationships?


• Do we accurately, adequately, and systematically track their discipleship activity?


• Do we provide ways and opportunities for them to be trained and to serve?

The problem with any and all of these measures is that while they track "something" going on with the believer, that "something" isn't necessarily "assimilation." In other words, it is entirely possible from a ministerial perspective to check "yes" on all these markers and still not have connected with the person.

Instead, just like we seem to be doing with evangelism in the post-modern age, we should be investing in assimilation from the perspective of the disciple. This was a list I was given a couple of years ago to do just that, and I think it more accurately measures assimilation from the perspective of the laity's perspective:

• Does this church family put me at ease and make me feel comfortable to be here?


• Does this church made me feel that I'm important, in my worth as well as my contribution?


• Has this church made effort to findout what I want, or even what I think I need?


• Has this church made any effort to listen to me or tried to understand me?


• Has this church provided me an opportunity to be involved in something where I can easily succeed?


• Has this church challenged me without overwhelming me?


• Has this church let me know that it just wants me to be part of the group, regardless of "what I bring to the table?"


• Has this church shown me uncommon courtesy?

From this perspective, a person who checks off "yes" on these items is more likely to be a truly engaged participant the church life, culture and mission. I submit we'll be more successful in seeing assimilation and true discipleship if we start (or return to, whatever the case may be) strategizing to accomplish measures that minister, rather than ones that administer.

Jesus said the best thing we can do in this season of harvest is to pray for God to send out the workers. God transforms a seeker into a servant. He has chosen to use us to build relationships with them to accomplish that end. Assimilation is impossible without relationship.

(part 2 follows on this link below)

My point is that for too long we've been assessing "assimilation" by our perspective, which is equally superficial and likely inaccurate because it's based on standards that we think represent a maturing believer. However, those ministerially-imposed standards can be satisfied and the person still be altogether unconnected with the church's culture & mission.

So instead, I'm suggesting that it's a worthwhile effort to turn our perspective around and try to imagine what it's like for a new believer or newly-connected believer to have to experience to have themselves be able to say "i am a part of this church's life, culture and mission." I think this second set of markers is "me-contexualized," but it is doing so that is not just "me focused." It welcomes the believer into the culture of the church as part of the family in a way that their identity is appreciated and included. The original way suggests that all that matters is what they have to offer to the church.

I'm suggesting the second approach is a more meaningful, worthwhile, and potentially successful standard of measure because when a person personally identifies with a life, culture, and mission, that person will be more likely to live and give to each element. When the first approach is taken, the disciple is more likely to experience burn-out, disconnect, and non-appreciation.

I know what that all "mature believers" never think of themselves. Ever. They've turned their eyes upon Jesus, right? Okay, back to reality now, I'm trying to be real while being biblical and suggesting that the people over whom we have been given discipling stewardship will be better stengthened, encouraged, and equipped for the "long haul journey" if we establish our initial expectations upon them in a biblical manner oriented from their perspective. I suggest it has been our (recently?) historic failure to do this that has resulted in the ironic pandemic situation where so many believers are so incredibly me-focused because we were so busy administering a discipleship program that we never ministered by actually discipling people.

December 10, 2004 12:11 PM