PRAGMATICS OF DISCIPLESHIP

PRAGMATICS OF DISCIPLESHIP
A STUDY OF AMBIGUITY ON A STRATEGIC LEVEL IN NORWEGIAN CHRISTIAN
YOUTH ORGANIZATIONS
Submitted to MHS School of Mission and Theology
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of Philosophiae Doctor (PhD)
March 2015
By Knut Tveitereid
NLA University College
2
CONTENTS
Abstract
7 Acknowledgements
9 1 Introduction and research design
11 1.1 Object of study and research questions
12 1.1.1 Starting point: recognizing the ambiguous nature of discipleship
12 1.1.2 The use of discipleship vocabulary in youth ministry – a phenomenon
15 1.1.3 Discipleship – a code word: Pragmatics as framework
16 1.1.4 Research questions
17 1.2 Theoretical interest and background: Discipleship in theological research
17 1.2.1 Discipleship in biblical theology
18 1.2.2 Discipleship in systematic theology
22 1.2.3 Weaknesses in existing literature
24 1.2.4 Toward an empirical turn in the theological study of discipleship?
26 1.3 Empirical interest: unit of analysis and methodological approach
30 1.3.1 The use of discipleship vocabulary...
31 1.3.2 ... in Norwegian Christian youth organizations
33 1.3.3 ... on the “strategic level”
38 1.3.4 Material I: Official documents as sources to the strategic level in organization
41 1.3.5 Material II: Executive interviews as sources to the strategic level in organizations
42 1.4 Conceptual and analytical framework
45 1.4.1 Theoretical framework for analysis: The Pragmatics of Charles W. Morris
46 1.4.2 Paradigm of analysis: American pragmatism with borrowings from critical realism
49 1.4.3 Mode of analysis: Description through abduction and double hermeneutics
53 1.5 Additional methodological considerations
61 1.5.1 Sampling and recruitment: organizations, official documents, and informants
61 1.5.2 The interviews
63 1.5.3 Transcript and translation, coding and re-coding
64 1.5.4 Reflexivity: On the adding of quality
66 2 Discipleship vocabulary in official documents
69 2.1 Presentation of organizations in the sample
69 2.1.1 Changemaker
69 2.1.2 KRIK (Eng.: CHRISC: Christian Sports Contact)
70 2.1.3 Korsvei (Eng.: The Crossroad movement)
72 2.1.4 Laget (Eng.: Norwegian Universities and Schools Christian Fellowship)
73 2.1.5 Misjonsforbundet Ung
74 2.1.6 Norges KFUK-KFUM (Trans.: YWCA / YMCA of Norway)
75 2.1.7 Norges unge katolikker (Eng.: Young Norwegian Catholics)
77 2.1.8 Substans (Trans.: “Substance”)
78 3
2.1.9 Trosopplæringen (Trans.: Christian Education in the Church of Norway)
80 2.1.10 Ungdom i Oppdrag (Eng.: Youth with a Mission)
81 2.1.11 Sample overview
83 2.2 The use of discipleship vocabulary in official documents
84 2.2.1 Low frequency cases
85 2.2.2 Moderate frequency cases
88 2.2.3 High frequency cases
92 2.3 Preliminary summary: Discipleship vocabulary in official documents
3 Interpretants: Executives’ assumptions
98 101 3.1 A sign of self-absorption (Changemaker)
103 3.2 A sign for inside use (KRIK)
105 3.3 A sign of self-exaltation (Norges unge katolikker)
108 3.4 An sign of past times (Norges KFUK-KFUM)
110 3.5 A sign of power issues (Trosopplæringen)
113 3.6 A sign worn out (Substans)
115 3.7 A sign of a multiplication strategy (Laget)
118 3.8 A sign of post-revivalism (Misjonsforbundet Ung)
120 3.9 A sign of a relational implementation of faith (Ungdom i Oppdrag)
122 3.10 A sign of the bridging of the social and spiritual (Korsvei)
125 3.11 Preliminary summary: Informants’ interpretations of discipleship
128 4 Pragmatics of Discipleship
131 4.1 Origins: The shaping of discipleship
132 4.1.1 Connecting to discourses as sources of inspiration
132 4.1.2 Distilling the discourse – reception in the case of Edin Løvås
135 4.1.3 Combining distilled sources in composing discipleship
138 4.2 Uses of discipleship in situation
139 4.2.1 “Disciple” used in reference to the twelve
142 4.2.2 “Disciple” used as model of ideals
143 4.2.3 “Disciple” used as marker of modification
144 4.2.4 “Disciple” used as mode of spirituality
146 4.2.5 “Disciple” used as method of influence
149 4.3 Effects: Situated cases
153 4.3.1 When brought into organizational strategies: The agent-of-change effect
154 4.3.2 When toned down in organizational strategies: The segregation effect
156 4.3.3 When involved in negotiation: effects on the shaping of organizational identity and image?
160 4.4 Preliminary summary: Discipleship as pragmatic phenomenon
5 Implications for Youth Ministry
164 167 5.1 Ecclesiological assumptions: the lean towards sodality
4
168 5.1.1 Folk vs. Flock
169 5.1.2 Events vs. fellowships
171 5.1.3 Symmetry vs. asymmetry
172 5.1.4 Modality vs. sodality
175 5.1.5 Sodality and the use of discipleship vocabulary
176 5.2 Organizational contributions and purpose: the lean towards intentionality
178 5.2.1 Social development: Creating citizenship through discipleship
179 5.2.2 Organizational development: Enculturation through discipleship
180 5.2.3 Identity formation: Bildung through discipleship
183 5.2.4 Intentionality: Giving purpose through discipleship
185 5.3 Discipleship and mentoring relationships: the lean towards sectarianism
189 5.3.1 Case: Mentoring as Discipleship
191 5.3.2 Case: Mentoring and discipleship somewhat related
193 5.3.3 Case: Mentoring without discipleship
195 5.3.4 Case: Neither mentoring nor discipleship
196 5.3.5 The shepherding/discipleship movement (an excursus)
198 5.3.6 Experiences on the discipling dilemma
201 5.4 Preliminary summary: Implications for youth ministry
6 Theological implications
205 207 6.1 Theological assumptions in the material: an overview
207 6.1.1 Spirituality
209 6.1.2 Ethics
210 6.1.3 Ministry
211 6.2 Soteriological perspectives
212 6.2.1 Discipleship as critique of folk-church soteriology
213 6.2.2 Discipleship as critique of evangelical soteriology
215 6.2.3 Preliminary summary: Expanding evangelical spirituality
220 6.3 Christological perspectives
220 6.3.1 Christo-centric discipleship
223 6.3.2 Christ-encountering discipleship
225 6.3.3 Christo-secluded discipleship
226 6.3.4 Christo-oblivious discipleship
230 6.4 Preliminary summary: Theology implied in discipleship vocabulary
7 Summary, suggestions and epilogue
233 235 7.1 Summary: Pragmatics of discipleship
235 7.2 Suggestions: Toward an improved use of discipleship vocabulary
237 7.2.1 Awareness about thin conceptualization
237 7.2.2 Awareness about power issues
239 7.2.3 Attentiveness to the presence of Christ
241 7.3 Epilogue: The Great Commission revisited
5
243 Appendix 1
247 Appendix 2
248 Appendix 3
250 Bibliography
251 6
ABSTRACT
Pragmatics of Discipleship: A study of ambiguity on a strategic level in Norwegian
Christian youth organizations
Christian discipleship has often been thematized in theological literature, but it has previously
not been approached as a phenomenon and made the object of empirical investigation. This
PhD thesis describes the use of discipleship vocabulary on a strategic level in a sample of 10
Norwegian Christian youth organizations. The study is particularly interested in how the
ambiguity (linguistic, connotational, emotional, and pragmatic) that comes to surface in
practice is understood, negotiated, and handled on a strategic level in these organizations.
The opening chapter introduces the theoretical and empirical interests that underlie the
research question and research design. The material is comprised of official documents of the
youth organizations as well as transcripts of interviews with organizational executives. Within
an analytical framework of pragmatics (a subfield of semiotics) discipleship vocabulary is
recontextualized and interpreted as coded signs.
Chapter 2 presents the organizations in the sample. A conceptual analysis of official
documents describes variations in their use of discipleship vocabulary, and stratifies the
sample in categories of low-, moderate-, and high-frequency organizations.
Chapter 3 traces the basic assumptions of the executives about the significance of
discipleship in and for the strategic level of their organization. It describes how the use and
non-use of discipleship vocabulary signifies specific, yet diverse concepts across the sample.
Chapter 4 draws directly on Morris’ three perspectives on the pragmatic task: origins,
uses and effects. Various concepts of discipleship seem to emerge through what could be seen
as a compositional process of combining distilled theological discourses. The material
testifies to five unique uses of discipleship vocabulary: (a) in reference to the twelve, (b) as a
model of ideals, (c) as a marker of modification, (d) as a mode of spirituality, and (e) as a
method of influence. This chapter also describes some effects when discipleship vocabulary is
brought into or toned down in organizational strategies, and when involved in negotiating
(external) organizational image with (internal) organizational identity.
Chapter 5 proposes implications for youth ministry. Active uses of discipleship
vocabulary seem to imply an inclination for ecclesial sodality and educational intentionality.
7
The chapter also describes experiences of a potentially sectarian side of discipleship
vocabulary in relation to power issues in mentoring relationships.
Chapter 6 focuses in on soteriology and Christology in the four high-frequency
organizations. Their uses of discipleship vocabulary seem to mark affiliation to, but not
necessary the affirmation of evangelical soteriology. The chapter also discerns various
Christologies in relation to the uses of discipleship vocabulary on a strategic level in the
sampled organizations, and points out a possible correspondence between conceptualization,
Christology, and the mentor.
The final chapter suggests three areas of attention towards an improved use of
discipleship vocabulary on a strategic level in future youth ministry: (a) awareness about thin
conceptualization, (b) awareness about power issues, and (c) attentiveness to the presence of
Christ. An epilogue explores constructively ambiguity as the very essence of Christian
discipleship.
Keywords: Discipleship, pragmatics, ambiguity, youth ministry, practical theology, strategic
level, organization, leadership, Norway.
8
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
In writing this thesis I have received advice, confirmation, opposition, and encouragement
from so many people on so many occasions. I am truly privileged and grateful. A big thank
you goes to:
NLA University College for funding, support, and flexibility.
MHS School of Mission and Theology for supervision and organizing.
Colleagues at NLA University College – in the Department of Theology and Religion, the
Theology & Spirituality research group, the Tuesday night soccer group, and in particular my
two office-partners: Associate Professor Gunnar Innerdal and Associate Professor Bård E. H.
Norheim.
Participants and friends, lecturers, and organizers in the Ecclesiology and Ethnography
network, the International Association for the study of Youth Ministry, the Research School
Religion Values and Society, at Norwegian School of theology and the University of Agder.
The informants.
My supervisors, for wisely led tutoring and much appreciated fellowship:
•
•
•
Professor Hans Austnaberg, co-supervisor in the research-training program
Professor Paul Otto Brunstad, local co-supervisor
Professor Bård Mæland, head supervisor
Solveig, Synne Kristiane, Adam Tomas, and Live Ingrid. I am content and incredibly proud of
each one of you – and of us as a family. This dissertation is yours.
9
10
1
INTRODUCTION AND RESEARCH DESIGN
A broad range of academic and more popular theological literature has thematized Christian
discipleship. But few, if any, have approached discipleship as a phenomenon and made it the
object of empirical investigation. The existing theological research literature consists
predominantly of separate and independent accounts that seek to develop and discuss
Christian discipleship in and from a particular tradition, context or perspective.1 I argue that
this particularity in itself could be seen as a call for new and more comprehensive approaches
to the understanding of discipleship.
As a small contribution to such a grand project, this study seeks to address what I
observe as one of the more urgent shortages in the research literature: the blind spot for the
pragmatic sides of discipleship – or what could be called the significance of discipleship inand for the practice field. There are immense variations in experiences, uses, interpretations,
and perceptions connected to discipleship in practice. And because research has shown little
interest for discipleship as an empirical phenomenon, most of the existing literature also
misses out on this ambiguity.2
This study analytically describes the ambiguity connected to the use of discipleship
vocabulary in one specific practice field: The strategic level in Norwegian Christian youth
organizations. The aim is to identify and describe variations present in this context, but also to
understand more deeply the assumptions underlying such a use. Empirically informed insights
of this kind will arguably make possible a more fruitful conversation between the practice
field and theological literature, a conversation that potentially could improve the future use
and understanding of discipleship in ministry. However, the same insights could also generate
critical questions, articulate relevant dilemmas, and identify promising potential that could
spark of and give direction to future theological research with an intensified precision.
1
Relevant research literature will be introduced and to some extent reviewed throughout this first chapter.
Section 1.2.3 clarifies what I see as basic weaknesses in the research literature.
2
Ambiguity is a central term in this study. In 1.1.1 I have elaborated it as a four-fold ambiguity: linguistic,
referential, emotional, and pragmatic. Although the terms ambiguous and ambivalent are closely related,
especially in the experience of the informants, they are not entirely overlapping. In general I see ambivalence
more as an emotional effect of ambiguity.
11
1.1
Object of study and research questions
1.1.1 Starting point: recognizing the ambiguous nature of discipleship
The ambiguous nature of discipleship is apparent on at least four different levels. First,
discipleship seems to suffer a linguistic ambiguity. To some extent it seems rather arbitrary
whether something is called discipleship or not. The title of two classic books, by Dietrich
Bonhoeffer and Edin Løvås, can serve as examples of this. These have been massively
influential on Norwegian church life and youth ministry, and are regarded by most people as
books about discipleship. When Løvås’ book on discipleship (1950) was republished in 1995
it was given the title Vår tid trenger kristusdisipler (my trans.: Our time needs disciples of
Christ). Its original title was Kanskje dette er vegen? (my trans.: Could this be the way?).3
Likewise, when Bonhoeffer’s Nachfolge (1937) was newly translated into Norwegian in 2010
it was given the title Etterfølgelse (my trans.: The following after). The first Norwegian
translation, from 1956, had the title Lydighetens vei (my trans.: The way of obedience).4 Both
examples demonstrate that the same thing could, and could not, be called discipleship. This
linguistic ambiguity should be given attention.5
Discipleship also seems to reflect a connotational or referential ambivalence. Not
only is the same thing called by different names, but the same name also refers to different
things. Discipleship in the research literature refers more often than not to different
understandings. It is, for instance, elaborated in terms of education6, dissidence7, mission8,
3
Edin Løvås, Kanskje dette er vegen? (Oslo: Ansgar, 1950); Edin Løvås, Vår tid trenger kristusdisipler (Garmo:
Sandomstiftelsen, 1995).
4
Dietrich Bonhoeffer, The cost of discipleship (London: SCM, 1959); Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Lydighetens vei,
Nachfolge (Oslo: Land og Kirke, 1956); Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Nachfolge (Geneva: Die Kriegsgefangenenhilfe
des Weltbundes der Christlichen Vereine Junger Männer, 1937); Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Etterfølgelse, trans. Knut
Grønvik (Oslo: Luther, 2010).
5
In Norwegian some people would differentiate between discipleship and followship (Norw. etterfølgelse).
English does not have this distinction, as discipleship covers both being a disciple and being a follower. German
even differentiates between two types of following after. One of the more fruitful academic discourses
concerning discipleship in New Testament scholarship has been on a discrepancy over Nachfolge (afterfollowing) and Nachahmung (after-taking (Lat. imitatio). This dissertation is written in English, and will use
discipleship as the overarching term. If and when it is differentiated between discipleship and “followship” in
my Norwegian material, I will comment on that.
6
Leland Harder, “The concept of discipleship in Christian education,” Religious Education: The official journal
of the Religious Education Association 58, no. 5 (1963). Erich Feifel, Der pädagogische Anspruch der
Nachfolge Christi: Ein Beitrag zur Neuorientierung in der katholischen Religionspädagogik: Festgabe für Franz
Xaver Arnold zum 70. Geburtstag (Donauwörth: Auer, 1968). Hans Jürgen Milchner, Nachfolge Jesu und
Imitatio Christi: die theologische Entfaltung der Nachfolgethematik seit den Anfängen der Christenheit bis hin in
die Zeit der devotio moderna: Unter besonderer Berücksichtigung religionspädagogischer Ansätze (Berlin: LIT
Verlag, 2004).
7
David Augsburger, Dissident discipleship: A spirituality of self-surrender, love of God, and love of neighbor
(Grand Rapids, MI: Brazos Press, 2006).
12
citizenship9, imagination10, feminism11, youth ministry12, nonviolence13, ecclesiology14,
politics15, creative love16, prayer17, concern for the poor18, intentionality19, consumerism20,
spiritual formation21, public faith22, suffering23, radicalism24, perseverance25, and mentoring26 to
name a few.
8
David J. Bosch, Transforming mission: Paradigm shifts in theology of mission, vol. no. 16, American Society
of Missiology series (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 1991), 56ff.
9
Mary C. Boys, Education for citizenship and discipleship (New York: The Pilgrim Press, 1989); Nelle G.
Slater, Tensions between citizenship and discipleship (New York: The Pilgrim Press, 1989).
10
David Brown, Discipleship and imagination: Christian tradition and truth (Oxford: Oxford University Press,
2000).
11
Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza, Discipleship of equals: A critical feminist ekklesia-logy of liberation (London:
Crossroad, 1993).
12
Arthur D. Canales, “Models for adolescent ministry: Exploring eight ecumenical examples,” Religious
Education 101 no. 2 (2006). Graham Cray, Postmodern culture and youth discipleship: Commitment or looking
cool? (Cambridge: Grove Books, 2003). Chap Clark and Kara Eckmann Powell, Deep ministry in a shallow
world: Not-so-secret findings about youth ministry (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2006).
13
Nicole L. Johnson, Practicing discipleship: Lived theologies of nonviolence in conversation with the doctrine
of the United Methodist Church (Eugene, OR: Pickwick Publications, 2009).
14
Avery Dulles, Models of the church (New York: Image Books/Doubleday, 2002); Avery Robert Dulles,
“Community of disciples as a model of church,” Philosophy & Theology 1, no. 2 (1986). Chris Shirley, “It takes
a church to make a disciple: An integrative model of discipleship for the local church,” Southwestern Journal of
Theology 50, no. 2 (2008). Hans Kvalbein, “I Jesu skole: Disippelskap som utgangspunkt for kirkeforskningen,”
in Slik blir kirken til: Kirke i forandring i Det nye testamente (Trondheim: Det teologiske menighetsfakultet,
2003).
15
John Howard Yoder, “The disciple of Christ and the way of Jesus,” in The politics of Jesus: Vicit Agnus noster
(Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1994); John Howard Yoder, Discipleship as political responsibility
(Harrisonburg, VA: Herald Press, 2003).
16
Jürgen Moltmann, Theology of hope: On the ground and the implications of a Christian eschatology (London:
SCM Press, 1967).
17
Geir-Otto Holmås, “Bønn og disippelskap i Lukas-Acta. Til belysning av bønnens betydning for kristen
formatio,” Halvårsskrift for praktisk teologi, Oslo: Luther forlag. 1 (2009).
18
Gustavo Gutiérrez, “Discipleship: Walking according to the spirit,” in Essential Writings, ed. James B.
Nickoloff (London: SCM Press, 1996).
19
Ivan J. Kauffman, Follow me: A history of Christian intentionality (Eugene, OR: Cascade Books, 2009).
20
Leif Gunnar Engedal, “Searching for spiritual roots and discipleship in a postmodern consumer culture: The
Norwegian Crossroad movement,” Spiritus: A Journal of Christian Spirituality 11, no. 1 (2011). Brian J. Mahan,
Michael Warren, and David F. White, Awakening youth discipleship. Christian resistance in a concumer culture
(Eugene, OR: Cascade Books, 2008).
21
Dallas Willard, The great omission. Reclaiming Jesus’ essential teaching on discipleship (New York:
HarperOne, 2006); Dallas Willard, Renovation of the heart: Putting on the character of Christ (Colorado
Springs, CO: NavPress, 2002).
22
Miroslav Volf, A public faith: How followers of Christ should serve the common good (Grand Rapids, MI:
Brazos Press, 2011).
23
Reinhard Hütter, Suffering divine things: Theology as church practice (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2000).
Bård Eirik Hallesby Norheim, Practicing baptism: Christian practices and the presence of Christ (Eugene, OR:
Pickwick Publications, 2014).
24
John Stott, The radical disciple: Some neglected aspects of our calling (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Books, 2010).
Lee C. Camp, Mere discipleship: Radical Christianity in a rebellious world, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Brazos,
2008). Anthony J. Gittins, A presence that disturbs: A call to radical discipleship (Liguori, MO:
Liguori/Triumph, 2002).
25
Eugene H. Peterson, A long obedience in the same direction: Discipleship in an instant society (Downers
Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1980).
26
James M. Houston, The disciple: Following the true mentor (Colorado Springs, CO: David C. Cook, 2007).
13
Emotional ambiguity is a third kind of ambiguity related to discipleship. There is
something about discipleship, at least in a Norwegian setting, that seems to touch a nerve and
cause an emotional stir in people. During this study I have met youth ministers who
enthusiastically assert that “if only Christians get discipleship, the church will once again
prevail!”. Others are more concerned. One of them took me aside once and shared some
frightening experiences and told me in a quivering voice to be “very, very careful” because
“discipleship is dangerous”.
My own emotional ambivalence towards discipleship was part of the motivation for
going into research. Despite a traditional Christian upbringing, I did not take any notice of
discipleship before I was in my early twenties. As I picked up bits and pieces here and there, I
soon became increasingly enthusiastic about discipleship. As a youth minister it felt as if
discipleship was a tremendously fitting description and framework for the kind of missional,
mentoring and monastic spirituality we experimented with at the time. I have accounted for
my own enthusiasm in innumerable sermons, a couple of articles, and an inspirational book27.
To this day I find beauty in articulating Christian faith in terms of discipleship – but I try no
longer to be in denial about the (potentially) dark and dangerous elements that gradually crept
up on me. Before going into research I was unable to pinpoint where this ambivalence came
from and why it emerged. The literature on discipleship did not help much either. The
observation I made years ago, about a shortage in addressing emotional ambiguity in relation
to discipleship, is still valid, I think. If nothing else, it motivated me into research.
Pragmatic ambiguity I see as a fourth and final ambivalence related to discipleship.
The linguistic, hermeneutic, and emotional ambiguities explained are not separate and tidy
entities in practice. They are intertwined and more or less consciously negotiated. Not to
wonder, then, that different people, churches – and organizations – use discipleship
vocabulary differently. It is this diversity, and the experiences, assumptions, stories and
assessments that underlie it, that this study seeks to address. It is through use, I argue, that the
real problems of discipleship show up. My approach, then, is to study how discipleship
vocabulary is being used today in one specific context: on the strategic level in Norwegian
Christian youth organizations. The ten selected organizations28 represent all the ambiguities
mentioned above; the appreciation for discipleship is unevenly distributed. And for me, the
27
Knut Tveitereid, En helt overkommelig disippel (Oslo: Det norske bibelselskap, 2005).
These are (in alphabetical order): Changemaker, Korsvei, KRIK, Laget, Misjonsforbundet Ung, Norges
KFUK-KFUM, Norges unge katolikker, Substans, Trosopplæringen, Ungdom i oppdrag. See section 2.1 for a
presentation of these.
28
14
non-use of discipleship is as interesting as the use; the bad experiences are as interesting as
the success-stories.
1.1.2 The use of discipleship vocabulary in youth ministry – a phenomenon
This study approaches the use of discipleship vocabulary as a phenomenon. A phenomenon
can be understood in at least two different ways. In popular usage, a phenomenon marks
something extraordinary; an event worth noting or an occurrence of significance. At least in
some respects it would be fair to view discipleship as such a phenomenon. Talking about
discipleship has recently in much of the youth ministry world become a noticeable element
and gained popularity. As many of these settings were unfamiliar with discipleship just a
decade or two ago, a shift in vocabulary seems to have occurred. This wave of discipleship is
particularly noticeable in evangelical (youth) ministry. The number of inspirational books that
thematize discipleship coming from this tradition has increased dramatically.29 In some circles
“discipleship” appears to be a buzzword of choice.30
More importantly, discipleship could also be approached as a phenomenon in a more
scholarly sense. In academic usage, a phenomenon is anything accessible to observation.
Discipleship, like much of theology, belongs to the world of ideas, inaccessible to empirical
observation. The use of discipleship vocabulary, however, is a phenomenon that is open to
empirical inquiry, and this study is interested in just that. In this I follow Immanuel Kant and
others who contrast phenomena (that which belong to the world of experiences) to noumena
(that which belong to the world of ideas). What discipleship is in itself lies beyond the scope
of this study. What discipleship is for the organizations in the sample is what interests me. It
29
See for instance: Peterson, A long obedience in the same direction; Jonathan Hartgrove-Wilson, New
monasticism: What it has to say to today's church (Grand Rapids, MI: Brazos, 2008); Kauffman, “Follow me”;
Mike Breen and Steve Cockram, Å bygge en disippelkultur (Skjetten: Hermon, 2010); Michael Frost and Alan
Hirsch, The shaping of things to come: Innovation and mission for the 21st-century church (Peabody, MA:
Hendrickson, 2003); Mark Scandrette and Stian Kilde Aarebrot, Jesusveien: Eksperimenter underveis (Oslo:
Luther, 2011); Bill Hull, The complete book of discipleship: On being and making followers of Christ (Colorado
Springs, CO: Navpress, 2006); Hal Perkins, Walk with me: A biblical journey in making christlike disciples
(Kansas City, KA: Bacon Hill, 2008); Alan Andrews, The kingdom life: A practical theology of discipleship and
spiritual formation, ed. Alan Andrews (Colorado Springs, CO: Navpress, 2010); Camp, Mere discipleship;
Alister E. McGrath, Mere theology: Christian faith and the discipleship of the mind (London: SPCK, 2010);
Houston, The disciple: Following the true mentor.
30
An example of this is the way many of Norway’s Bible schools in recent years have changed the names of
their programs by introducing discipleship terminology: Ansgar bibelskole: Bibel og Disippelskap; Bibelskulen
på Bildøy: Disippel; Gå Ut Senteret: Global disippel; Bibelskolen i Grimstad: Følg meg; Filadalfia Bible School
in Oslo: “Become a disciple” (vision statement); and Krik-høyfjellssenter: “inspire and equip young people to
follow Jesus” (from vision statement). Youth with a Mission (YWAM) runs seven DTS (Disciple Training
Schools) in Norway, which will be discussed in detail below.
15
is at the level of experience, in the use of discipleship vocabulary in practice, that the
ambiguity of discipleship occurs.
1.1.3 Discipleship – a code word: Pragmatics as framework
Early on I came across a definition of discipleship that would prove to give this study its
overall direction. In the Danish encyclopedia Den Store Danske: Gyldendals åbne
encyklopædi I found the following definition of discipleship (Da.: Kristi efterfølgelse):
Discipleship has in church history again and again been the code word for a return to the
strictness in the way of life of the Primitive church. […] Discipleship in Protestantism is the
key word for a Christian conversion to the true Christendom. […]31 (My trans. and italics)
The content of this article on discipleship is strongly biased and is very much in need
of nuancing and revision, in my view. But without buying into the material side of it, I found
its articulation of discipleship as a code word and a key word precisely to the point.
Discipleship holds underlying assumptions, social expectations and normative intentions. The
use of discipleship vocabulary prescribes a specific behavior. In this way discipleship is a
social code as much as it is a theological idea. The symbolic function of this word should not
be neglected if trying to understand the phenomenon of discipleship.
This realization made me consider pragmatics as a theoretical framework for this
study. (Later, in 1.4, I will elaborate on this as the theoretical framework of choice.)
Pragmatics can be seen as a subfield of semiotics (theory of signs). I borrow Charles W.
Morris’ threefold division of labor of semiotics:
•
•
•
Semantics: Studies the relation between sign-vehicles and objects/concepts, often
in terms of significance.
Syntactics: Studies the relation between a sign-vehicle and other signs, with the
attention on form etc.
Pragmatics: Studies the relation between a sign-vehicle and interpretants, the
experiences of people in situations.32
While the scope of modern pragmatics tends to be either too wide or too narrow for
my purpose, classic pragmatics understands itself generally as “the study of how utterances
have meaning in situations.”33 Morris, for one, understood pragmatics as the study of origins,
uses, and effects of signs. Informed by the classic pragmatics of Morris, this study seeks to
31
http://www.denstoredanske.dk/Samfund,_jura_og_politik/Religion_og_mystik/Dogmatik/Kristi_efterfølgelse
(Accessed 2010/08/23).
32
Please see section 1.4 for elaboration and references.
33
Geoffrey N. Leech, Principles of pragmatics (New York: Longman, 1983), x.
16
understand how the uttering of discipleship (the use of discipleship vocabulary) gives
meaning on a strategic level in a sample of ten unique organizational situations.
Without giving away too much in advance: in the sampled organizations’ official
documents and in interviews with their executives, I found plenty of linguistic, connotational,
emotional, and pragmatic ambiguity related to discipleship. At the strategic level in
organizations, words are often used deliberately and with consideration to clarify
organizational culture, identity, and image. Other times, the use of words is more coincidental.
Working with organizational strategy necessitates assessments about language usage that
perhaps surpass everyday usage. Organizational strategies represent a kind of condensed and
purposeful reality. Underlying assumptions may be more evident and put to the test here than
elsewhere. The ten Norwegian Christian youth organizations in the sample were strategically
selected in order to represent a considerable degree of variety regarding discipleship.
1.1.4 Research questions
From what is said above it should not be a surprise that the main research question is: How is
the use of discipleship vocabulary understood on a strategic level in Norwegian Christian
youth organizations – with a special focus on ambiguity? This is an empirical, descriptive and
interpretative question. Most of this thesis, Chapters 1–6, is my attempt at answering this
question.
A subsidiary research question will be treated much more briefly in chapter 7: How
could the use of discipleship vocabulary be improved on a strategic level in youth ministry?
This is a constructive and normative question. It should be seen as an extension of the first
one, and as a suggestive response to what has been worked up through the analyses in
Chapters 1–6.34
1.2
Theoretical interest and background: Discipleship in theological research
This project was initially designed as a theoretical study of discipleship in a selected body of
theological literature. Discipleship is undoubtedly a theological idea and concept, and as a
trained theologian I instinctively, and of habit, turned to books for answers. As the project
34
Let me just add a note on how I have reasoned in order to justify this research ethically. After all, a PhD thesis
costs a candidate three to four years of work and society approximately 2.5 million Kroners (approximately kr
10,000 per page). Theology, along with most research in humanities and social sciences, is not a matter of lifeand-death. I do however believe the new insights produced in this dissertation could not only open up a scholarly
conversation, but also contribute to deeper reflection and better practice in the field of ministry. By this I imply
justification along utilitarian arguments (i.e., that is it useful, at least for some), and not in deontological
argumentation (i.e., that it is essentially necessary).
17
matured, however, and I was gradually able to articulate ambiguity related to discipleship as
the place where this study would set foot, an “empirical turn” became more and more
inevitable and relevant. As already demonstrated in 1.1.1, and even more so in this section,
ambiguity is often not a mark of discipleship in the theological literature. Despite the vast
quantity of theological accounts, they leave a limited reflection about how to understand, let
alone how to handle, discipleship as an ambiguous sign in practice. With the hope of sparking
off a conversation about this, I found it relevant to develop basic insights about the use of
discipleship vocabulary in a certain context. By doing so, my unit of analysis somewhat
transformed accordingly. It was no longer a theoretical idea or theological concept
(discipleship), but an empirical phenomenon (the use of…), which again forced this study to
engage in qualitative methodology. Still the theological research literature is relevant. It is not
only part of what caused this study to emerge in the first place. It is also as a theologian I have
conducted this study, particularly interested in implications for youth ministry (Ch. 5) and
theological implications emerging out of the practice field (Ch. 6).
The overall ambition of the dissertation is to produce insights about the use of
discipleship vocabulary in a specific field of practice, not to contribute to theoretical theology
in traditional sense. Discipleship is after all a theological theme with obvious practical
implications. Still, I have the hope that empirically informed insight generated here could be
brought into discussion with theology. There is, I believe, a potential here for bridging a gap
between theology in research and theology in the lived.
Some of the weaknesses I see in the traditional theological theoretical treatment of
discipleship will be identified and addressed below. There is however no shortage of
theological accounts on discipleship. The topic has previously been, and still is, a reoccurring
theme in most theological disciplines. The sheer number of accounts makes it impossible to
give an exhaustive presentation of theological research in relation to discipleship. The
following review could therefore seem somewhat selective and superficial – but gives at the
same time access to some of the longer lines of development in theological research.
After a review of selected historical (1.2.1) and systematic accounts (1.2.2), I will
point out a number of weaknesses in and with this literature (1.2.3). These weaknesses, then,
create a starting point for the empirical investigation.
1.2.1 Discipleship in biblical theology
The story of the twelve first disciples of Jesus in the Gospels of the New Testament is the
obvious starting point for any account of Christian discipleship. The metaphorical proximity
18
to the Gospel stories gives discipleship vocabulary an associative power for theologizing. The
same nearness does however also add complexity in a range of different areas.
Discipleship, understood as a form of apprenticeship to a reputed (often religious)
authority, has historical roots long before the time of Jesus. From what we know, discipleship
as a term and as an institution goes back to philosophers in Antiquity35 and Old Testament
prophets36, to say the least. Jesus was not the inventor of discipleship and far from the only
teacher of disciples in his time. Both John the Baptist and Pharisees were involved in the
same.37 Rabbi/disciple relationships were a common occurrence in Second-Temple Judaism.
Jesus was, according to the Gospels, identified as a Jewish rabbi on several occasions by his
contemporaries. This has also been a popular approach to Jesus in research.38 New Testament
scholar Michael J. Wilkins has however proposed that although Jesus’ form of discipleship
had obvious similarities to the discipleship of other religious leaders, it still “defies any other
35
Rengstorf’s article in Kittel’s Theological dictionary gives an overview of this history. In classical Antiquity
µαθητης took on the analogy of a pupil, one that was set to learn (µανθανω). Such a process in the heyday of
Athens normally presupposed a teacher (διδασκαλος) – and a corresponding personal relationship. Ironically,
already then, the discussions went high on the impending hierarchical and elitist structures in these relationships.
Epictetus, to name one, was a proud διδασκαλος and παιδευτης, and saw his role as key for any learner in search
of perfection. Socrates, on the other hand, refused relationships of this type. His service as midwife (Gr.
ωφελειν) was to be at the disposal of all his fellow citizens. When this concept was extended in time, µαθητης
was expounded in terms of µιµεοµαι – imitation. In this respect Socrates was seen as the perfect disciple/imitator
of Homer. In another respect, the adherents of Plato were considered disciples and imitators of him long after his
death. Karl Heinrich Rengstorf, “µαθητης,” in Theological dictionary of the New Testament: Vol. 4: L–N, ed.
Gerhard Kittel and Geoffrey W. Bromiley (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1967), 416ff.
36
For this perspective, see: Michael J. Wilkins, The concept of disciple in Matthew’s gospel: as reflected in the
use of the term µαθητης (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1988). For Wilkins the OT discipleship, understood as a principle of
tradition including formative relationships, is an obvious background for understanding the New Testament in
general and the discipleship of the Matthean community in particular. Rengstorf is, on the other hand, more
critical. He belives there is an absence of master–disciple relations and the principle of tradition in the OT. He
mentions a number of factors that add complexity to the OT image of discipleship: (i) There are only a few
scattered occurrences of the term
, (ii) and it seems to imply servanthood more than a learning
relationship, (iii) the main aim of the OT is that all of the people were to be taught, and (iv) the prophets of the
OT would never try to interpose themselves as a factor of independent worth in the dialogue between God and
his people. Rengstorf, “µαθητης,” 426ff.
37
See for instance Mark 2:18.
38
See for instance: Rudolf Karl Bultmann, Jesus and the word (London: Collins, 1958), 57–61. Hans Dieter
Betz, Nachfolge und Nachahmung Jesu Christi im Neuen Testament, Beiträge zur historischen Theologie
(Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1967), 10–27. Anselm Schulz, Nachfolgen und Nachahmen: Studien
über das Verhältnis der neutestamentlichen Jüngerschaft zur urchristlichen Vorbildethik (Munich: Kösel, 1962);
Birger Gerhardsson, Memory and manuscript: Oral tradition and written transmission in rabbinic Judaism and
early Christianity, vol. 22, Acta Seminarii neotestamentici Upsaliensis (Uppsala: Gleerup, 1961). Rainer Riesner,
Jesus als Lehrer: Eine Untersuchung zum Ursprung der Evangelienüberlieferung (Tübingen: Mohr, 1988);
James D. G. Dunn, Unity and diversity in the New Testament: An inquiry into the character of earliest
Christianity (London: SCM Press, 1990). Samuel Byrskog, Jesus the only teacher: didactic authority and
transmission in ancient Israel, ancient Judaism and the Matthean community, vol. 24, Coniectanea Biblica, New
Testament series (Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell International, 1994).
19
satisfactory categorization”.39 He relates this to the fact that Jesus insisted on being one with
the Father and being far more than an ordinary teacher, already in his earthly life. This also
implies that Christian discipleship, right from the start, entailed far more than learning the
skills and embodying the wisdom of the master. Any ambition to advance from “disciple” to
“master” in Christian discipleship, and contrary to other discipleships we know, is out of the
question.40 The position of “master” was reserved for Jesus when he was here, and according
to his word, reserved for him in the ages to come.
The New Testament depicts how discipleship took on a range of patterns in the early
church.41 The various Gospels and Epistles, written some decades after the life of Jesus,
present manifold developments in how the early church understood what it meant to be a
disciple of Jesus. The New Testament scholar Hans Kvalbein gives one interesting
perspective on this development in his study of the term µαθητής in the book of Acts.42 Here,
discipleship vocabulary occurs less frequently than in the Gospels. But Kvalbein has pointed
out that these occurrences, however scarce, represent nothing less than an astonishing
geographical distribution.43 To him this suggests that most congregations in the early church
understood themselves as fellowships of disciples. Disciple was in fact the first common
name and description of those who later would be known as Christians.44 The few had
become many. The local following of the twelve had become worldwide. Such a development
could only have been possible if accompanied by a similar expansion of what it meant to be
disciples of Jesus Christ. The walking in the same dust as Rabbi Jesus had now become a
general adherence to the resurrected Lord Jesus.
Fernando F. Segovia more than any other has drawn attention to this emerging
ambiguity of discipleship in the New Testament. In his book, Discipleship in the New
Testament, a line of eminent scholars investigates the concept of discipleship in different New
39
Michael J. Wilkins, Following the master: A biblical theology of discipleship (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan,
1992), 97. For this conclusion he leans on Martin Hengel and John Riches, The charismatic leader and his
followers (Edinburgh: Clark, 1981); C. G. Montefiore, Rabbinic literature and Gospel teachings (New York:
KTAV, 1970); Paul D. Hanson, The people called: The growth of community in the Bible (San Francisco: Harper
& Row, 1986).
40
Matt 23:1ff. See also Byrskog, “Jesus the only teacher”.
41
Richard N. Longenecker, Patterns of discipleship in the New Testament, McMaster New Testament studies
(Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdman, 1996).
42
Hans Kvalbein, “Da disiplene ble kristne (Apgj 11,26),” in Ad acta: Studier til Apostlenes gjerninger og
urkristendommens historie. Tilegnet professor Edvin Larsson på 70-årsdagen, ed. Reidar Hvalvik and Hans
Kvalbein (Oslo: Verbum, 1994).
43
The geographical location of disciples according to Acts: Jerusalem (6:7), Damascus (9:19), Joppa (9:36),
Antioch (11:26.29), Antioch of Pisidia (13:14.52), Lystra (14:20), Derbe (14:22; 16:1), Iconium (14:28), Region
of Galatia and Phrygia (18:23), Achaia (18:27): Ephesus (19:1.9.30), Tyre (21:4), Cyprus (21:16).
44
See Acts 11:28
20
Testament writings.45 What they find is that discipleship is used to describe a range of values,
qualities, and virtues among the New Testament writers:
In Mark we find prominence to the empowerment for Christian mission. In Matthew special
attention is given to initiation into the deeper significance of Jesus’ teaching. Luke accents the
breaking of old ties and total attachment to the person of Jesus. John stresses election to
membership in a community sharply opposed to the “world”. Paul emphasizes self-emptying
love in relation of Jesus. The Letter to the Ephesians underscores assimilation to God. The
Apocalypse celebrates the anticipated victory of those who “follow the Lamb”. James calls for
single-minded obedience to the law of God. The first letter of Peter dwells on solidarity in
suffering with the Lord Jesus etc.46
This referential ambiguity of discipleship in the New Testament is accompanied by
linguistic ambiguity – or should we say inconsistency? This is particularly evident in Paul’s
writing. No one would in all seriousness suggest that Paul dismisses the idea of discipleship
altogether. Still, it is an inescapable fact that he consistently omits the term µαθητής in his
writings. For some reason we do not know, he chooses not to use discipleship vocabulary, to
phrase it in the language of this study. Wilkins has described Paul’s discipleship as a
“discipleship in other words” for this reason.47 The use of discipleship vocabulary was already
then optional.48 In the case of Paul, however, he introduces the term µιµετής – imitator. The
phenomenon that µαθητής and cognates only occur in the Gospels and Acts, whereas µιµετής
and cognates only occur in the Epistles, provokes the question of the relationship between
them.49 This simple observation gave rise to what would become the long scholarly
Nachfolge/Nachamung debate in the second half of the twentieth century.50 This debate has
been summarized in the two following questions: “Does the term µιµετής, in fact, become the
45
Fernando F. Segovia, Discipleship in the New Testament (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1985). For a similar
study, see for instance Longenecker, Patterns of discipleship in the New Testament.
46
This summative presentation is borrowed from Dulles, Models of the church, 203.
47
Wilkins, Following the master: A biblical theology of discipleship, 291ff.
48
As much as I believe Paul’s example gives some biblical basis for allowing and respecting similar kinds of
choices made today, I still think Paul would have made it easier for us if he had shared some of his underlying
reflection at this point.
49
For a compact account of this huge scholarly debate, see Victor A. Copan, “Μαθητής and Μιµηθής: Exploring
an entangled relationship,” Bulletin for Biblical Research 17, no. 2 (2007), 11.
50
See for instance: Betz, “Nachfolge und Nachahmung Jesu Christi im Neuen Testament”; Schulz, Nachfolgen
und Nachahmen.
21
substitute expression for µαθητής, or does it maintain its identity?” and “If it does maintain its
own identity, what then is the relationship between these two concepts?”51
1.2.2 Discipleship in systematic theology
The New Testament presents not one understanding of discipleship, but many. Some of this is
due to historical development. We might see that as a referential ambiguity. And in parts it
also reveals a linguistic variation – which we might call a linguistic ambiguity. This way, the
New Testament has left a very rich heritage – but also a confusing one. Unfortunately, some
would say, it shows very little interest in describing the negotiations, assumptions,
experiences, and reasoning behind different use and understanding of discipleship. Anyone
who wants to understand, let alone use, discipleship vocabulary today faces a challenging
interpretive task. I will now very briefly introduce two figurants who have observed
something similar.
The Roman Catholic theologian Avery Dulles makes an interesting remark about
discipleship towards the end of his book on ecclesiology, Models of the church. After an
overview of the biblical material on discipleship, he claims: “In combining these various
emphases, the reader of the New Testament is challenged to construct a rich and multifaceted
concept of discipleship”.52 By this he makes two important points. Firstly, the picture of
discipleship in the New Testament is in itself rich and multifaceted. At this point the Bible
appears more of a library of different discipleships than as a book with one coherent version.
To read the Bible faithfully is not to select, let’s say, Matthew’s understanding of discipleship
and neglect the others, but to try to comprehend the entire depth and width of the biblical
testimony. Secondly, any reader of this multifaceted material is challenged faithfully and
creatively to construct a discipleship usable in his or her own context. By saying this, he
opens discipleship up as conditioned by situation. Faithful discipleship, then, is not to
maintain a solid and unchangeable understanding of discipleship – but to engage in the
negotiation of discipleship in any given situation in life.
51
Copan, “Μαθητής and Μιµηθής”.
To expand a bit further: John Howard Yoder suggested the two traditions as respectively a spacial discipleship
and a mystical discipleship – both with Old Testament roots. Discipleship understood as the spacial followingafter finds its roots in the pillar in the desert, while discipleship in the more mystical imagery of imitation draws
on an “image of God structure”. The two metaphors of µαθητής and µιµετής overlap sufficiently in substance,
Yoder claims, in order for us to properly treat them together. John Howard Yoder, The politics of Jesus: Vicit
agnus noster, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1994), 112ff. In the Lutheran tradition, Edvin Larsson also
challenged a clear distinction between following and imitation. Edvin Larsson, Christus als Vorbild: eine
Untersuchung zu den paulinischen Tauf- und Eikontexten, vol. 23, Acta Seminarii neotestamentici Upsaliensis
(Uppsala: Gleerup, 1962).
52
Dulles, Models of the church, 203.
22
The other example is Kathleen A. Cahalan and James R. Nieman’s attempt to “map”
the field of practical theology from a starting point in discipleship.53 They propose a call for a
common purpose for all practical theology. They find this shared purpose in what they call a
faithful discipleship.54 It is beyond my scope to evaluate their project as a whole, which is an
ambitious one. I do however find their approach to discipleship important, as they attempt to
clarify what they mean by discipleship. Although somewhat minimalistic in presentation,
their understanding gives a good clue, I think, to a fruitful entry to discipleship.
Christian discipleship can be compactly described as being called by Jesus to follow. Whether
long ago or today, ordinary people encounter this call in the course of their daily lives as the
people they already are. They are met by a compelling invitation that originates outside
themselves. Specifically, Jesus draws them into a new relationship with God. To submit to that
relationship is what it means to follow. This kind of following utterly reorients the existence
of disciples toward bearing witness to the new life they now have with God through the
Spirit.55
Cahalan and Nieman have given here some central terms towards a basic
understanding of discipleship. Its basic elements are: (a) an encounter with the call of Jesus in
everyday situations, (b) an invitation to a relationship with God, and (c) a reorientation and
response.
From this Cahalan and Nieman elaborate three implications of discipleship that affect
practical theology. First, they say, because Jesus gathers to himself all those who are called,
there is a communal reality to discipleship. Second, because this communal orientation bears
witness to God’s ways, there is a theological substance to discipleship. Third, because
disciples make their service and witness in concrete and material ways, there is a practical
quality to discipleship.56
53
They see the field of PT as having developed along two dominant discourses: (a) PT as a distinctive academic
discipline with a philosophical foundation, and (b) PT in relation to the nature of theological education – a more
socially, ethically, and publicly engaged form of theology. Kathleen A. Cahalan and James R. Nieman,
“Mapping the field of practical theology,” in For life abundant: Practical theology, theological education, and
Christian ministry, ed. Dorothy C. Bass and Craig Dykstra (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2008), 62, 65 note 3.
54
They argue for their approach to PT as follows: “Perhaps this seems a peculiar place to begin. Certainly much
of the existing literature seems to center the field elsewhere, such as in an array of specific pastoral functions
(such as preaching, liturgy, counseling, teaching, administration, etc.) and/or the teaching of these areas; in
social and political movements of broad human and religious significance (such as liberation movements of
various kinds); in broad patterns of human development (including moral, religious, or faith development); in
particular forms of human transformation (such as nurture, conversion, or healing); or in sustained patterns of
human activity (such as rituals or various other particular social practices). While there is great significance in
each of these and each often has profound implications for practical theology as a whole, a serious distortion is
created by substituting a component part or aspect for the unifying purpose. We speak of the purpose that sets
the basic task of practical theology as supporting and sustaining lived discipleship. Rooted in Christian tradition,
practical theology focuses on a called people who manifest a particular faith through concrete ways of life.” Ibid.,
67.
55
Ibid.
56
Ibid., 67ff.
23
1.2.3 Weaknesses in existing literature
In Section 1.1 I made a series of initial observations regarding discipleship as such: Ambiguity
was identified as an important and interesting characteristic regarding discipleship itself
(1.1.1). In extension to this I suggested that discipleship could be approached as a
phenomenon, as apposed to a theological idea or theoretical concept (1.1.2). I also called
discipleship a code word, in the meaning that the language itself often has normative
overtones that entails a particular lifestyle, ethos, and practice (1.1.3). The question, then,
becomes: to what degree does the existing theological literature take these issues into
consideration?
We saw how for instance Dulles pointed to a certain ambiguity in the biblical material.
For him, a faithful interpretation of discipleship is one that constructs a "rich and
multifaceted" concept of discipleship, as a reflection of the "rich and multifaceted" concept of
discipleship in the New Testament material. This implies, at least indirectly, some sort of
opening for talking about ambiguity in relation to discipleship. But Dulles' viewpoint is not
representative for the majority of theological accounts on this point. Ambiguity is not a
quality or characteristic that is commonly discussed in the theological literature on
discipleship. The various accounts are in fact only to a limited extent in dialogue with each
other. There is, from what I can see, no established field of research or ongoing scholarly
conversation that naturally would address properties like ambiguity in relation to the topic of
discipleship. Instead most accounts develop discipleship in coherence with central
perspectives in the authors’ own tradition: The costly discipleship of Bonhoeffer is developed
from a Lutheran articulation of costly grace; the Roman Catholic Dulles develops discipleship
as a sacramentally focused model of church; the Anabaptists end up with a tripolar and
dissident discipleship closely related to a tripolar and dissident Anabaptist spirituality, etc.
This way, accounts of discipleship often appear as extensions and intensifications of
predisposed perspectives and values. There is an apparent need for a more comprehensive
understanding of discipleship as a phenomenon that is worth studying in itself.
A second weakness, linked to the first, is a tendency to underplay and overlook the
role of experience related to discipleship. Deductive modes of theologizing are still
dominating the treatment of discipleship. The much-mentioned empirical turn in theology,
which includes a renewed attention to ordinary and everyday theology, multi-methodological
24
and inter-disciplinary approaches to theological inquiry, seem absent.57 Context is often
reduced to denominational theology. By approaching discipleship as a phenomenon, inductive
modes of theologizing and empirical investigations become relevant. More importantly, the
problems related to discipleship on the ground and in practice come into focus. I argue that
these problems are worthy of attention. These are often related to a kind of ambiguity that is
largely overlooked in the existing literature.58
We saw how Cahalan and Nieman compactly understood discipleship to comprise a
communal reality, a theological substance, and a practical quality. This, and similar accounts
suggest that discipleship could not be understood completely from a theoretical perspective
alone. Part of what discipleship is and does require the attention of inductive/empirical
approaches. Discipleship, I believe, is shaped in interplay with the situation of the interpreter.
We saw how the New Testament leaves any reader the challenge to creatively construct a
faithful understanding of discipleship in his or her situation. Discipleship is not only shaped
by situations, it is also shaped in order to shape situations. The intention of the interpreter,
therefore, is part of the overall picture. Only when the normative ambitions of the interpreter
are considered can we start to understand discipleship as a phenomenon. The description of
“discipleship as code word” is therefore appropriate.
An empirical approach could highlight the communicative side of the vocabulary of
discipleship, which at least in Scandinavia is a highly loaded language. This study argues that
distinctive connotations and associations influence its use. Moreover, experiences, intentions
and assumptions are active elements in the interpretation of discipleship. In terms of semiotic
theory, semantics has been the preferred road to travel in theology, referring to the
relationship between a sign and its object. Pragmatics, on the other hand, which refers to the
relationship between a sign and its interpretants59, has largely been overlooked. In order to
57
On the need for more inductively driven and empirically informed theology see for instance Leif Gunnar
Engedal, “Jakten på sjelesorgens identitet: Teologiske og kulturanalytiske peilinger i en brytningstid,” Dansk
Tidsskrift for Teologi og Kirke 35, no. 3 (2008); Christian Batalden Scharen, Explorations in ecclesiology and
ethnography, Studies in ecclesiology and ethnography (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans, 2012); Pete
Ward, Perspectives on ecclesiology and ethnography, Studies in ecclesiology and ethnography (Grand Rapids,
MI: William B. Eerdmans, 2012).
58
For more, see 1.4.3: In general, and in the words of Anthony Giddens, most of the research literature could be
seen as accounts of a single hermeneutics. Single hermeneutics is often characterized by the tendency to locate
the hermeneutical task on the researcher’s side of the interpretive task. In a double hermeneutical approach the
task of understanding takes place among the actors in the practice field and among researchers trying to
understand the actors’ understanding. This perspective is neglected in much of the literature. The informants in
this study are the first interpreters. Their understanding is my preliminary source of the object of study.
59
In Morris’ theory, “interpretant” is the image or sign created in the interpreter by the first sign.
25
understand discipleship, I believe it is important to understand it from the perspective of
emotional ambiguity. Very little in the research literature suggests such an awareness.
The main problem with the existing theological literature on discipleship is what
seems to be a gap between the theological discourse done in the academy and the theological
discourse outside of it, in churches and organizations etc. This gap between the field of
practice and the field of theory is by no means exclusive for the study on discipleship, but also
here we see some of its consequences. And even though systematic and practical theologians,
as Dulles, Cahalan, Nieman and others, have placed discipleship at the intersection between
practice and theory, very little has been done in the study of discipleship to describe and
understand its properties following from also being a phenomenon. What these scholars point
out makes discipleship open to empirical research, and in some sense they give such research
backing and theological underpinning. As for now, the understanding of discipleship in the
practice field is to a large extent left for the practitioners to describe and interpret. This study
does however argue that such a study is important. Some of the problems and potentials
become visible and relevant first when looking on the practicing of discipleship in a real life
context. It is by approaching the actual use of discipleship vocabulary in a practice context
some of discipleship's inherent ambiguity becomes visible.
1.2.4 Toward an empirical turn in the theological study of discipleship?
Following from what is said above, the main ambition of this study is to empirically describe
and understand the phenomenon of discipleship in a practical context. The trustworthiness of
such a description is only possible to achieve if both the empirical and theological nature of
discipleship is maintained. What we study then is not only a phenomenon, but also a
theological phenomenon.
It is a too large ambition to contribute to the scholarly discourse in theology on
discipleship directly. For that the distance between theology in research and theology in the
26
lived are too far apart.60 Scholarly theology is by nature more refined and nuanced than
theology in the lived. I do not defend the idea that all theology should and could be practical,
or that all practitioners need to be advanced theorists for that matter. In the instance of
discipleship, however, and due to the practical-theoretical nature of discipleship, I would
insist on the relevance of bringing theory and practice in dialogue.
I hold the assumption that use of discipleship vocabulary in the practice field could
improve if informed by theological reflection. Rudiments of such a line of thinking is found in
the concluding chapter. In the research question, when articulating an ambition through
practical theological reflection (see research question 1.1.4), this is what is meant: Firstly,
understanding the phenomenon of discipleship in the given context, including its underlying
assumptions. Secondly and subsidiary, to offer this field a chance to improve its use of
discipleship vocabulary through practical theological reflection, including bringing it in
contact with some developments in theological research.
60
The gap could at least be broken down to a fourfold differences, as a difference in context, theological level,
mode, and normativity: 1) Theological utterances on a strategic level in organizations and theological utterances
in scholarly theology belong to two different contexts. The former comes out of a specific organizational
tradition, culture, language etc. and only on occasion is intended for a wider community outside the specific
organization setting. The latter belongs to a scholarly conversation, building on previous research, and seeking to
contribute to the same research through critical expansion. A theological utterance is in many ways context
bound, and must be understood in light of its contexts in order to give meaning. To enter either conversation has
its challenges. They both rely on a more or less outspoken practices, ethos and set of codes. 2) Theology on a
strategic organizational level and theology in academia naturally belong to different levels of theological
reasoning. There are in scholarly discourse quite different demands to stringency, coherence, precision, etc. This
makes the messy and often half-thought theology of a practice field of little interest for a scholarly conversation.
Theology in practice not only comes from the outside, it is often not thought through sufficiently in order to
drive a scholarly conversation forward. But there is also a related issue here. Theology in the practice field tends
to rely more on experience than what the case is in academia. While theology in the practice field is in a constant
negotiation with empirical reality, scholarly theology has the privilege of retreating from disturbances of
experiences, phenomena in the lived. Strategic theology has the outspoken intention to relate to and respond to
burning issues. There is simply something in the pace that differentiates the two. 3) A third difference we could
call a difference in mode. We can expect that any utterance emerging out of organizational strategizing always
have uncertainty attached to it. There are a number of factors influencing strategy, and strategy is made with the
intention to influence organizational behavior etc. Based on the latter claim, one could easily depict theological
utterances coming out of a strategic organizational level as speech acts. Scholarly theology is far from "neutral"
in the sense that it is not influenced or created to influence – still, the ideals of scholarly theology when it comes
to its sources, inference and claims, makes the two kinds of utterances distinctly different. The mode of
academia allows for a different kind of transparency in its claims, and is by nature engaged in critical assessment.
4) A fourth and final issue between theology in the lived, and theology in academia is a difference when it comes
to the basis for normativity. One could also say that while one engages in ontological questions, the other is
more engaged in practical reasoning. Academic theology, at least in the past, tends to be ontologically charged
with questions like "what is discipleship?" etc. Theology in the practice field is also familiar with similar
questions, but it would be fair to say that here one is more concerned with pragmatic and contextually
conditioned questions, of the kind: "how does discipleship work?" and "what are the consequences of
discipleship?" etc.
There is, as we have a seen, differences in mode, normativity and context when it comes to utterances said in a
specific strategizing and organizational setting compared to that of scholarly debates in theology. There are also,
however, possibilities for bridging. I have argued that the differences are differences in degree, not nature.
27
Since the time of Schleiermacher the task of practical theology has been viewed to
apply conclusions from the other disciplines. In his small but momentous book, Kurtze
Darstellung des theologischen Studiums,61 scholarly theology has been ordered into four
disciplines: Biblical, Historical, Systematic, and Practical Theology. These categories have
shown their durability and are still valid in most universities. But Schleiermacher’s model
suggests more than mere categorization. It also implies a methodological succession, a strict
deductive approach to theology. Revelation, so to say, runs through scholarly theology from
above, from biblical theology down to practical theology. The task of one discipline is to
continue where the previous one left off. The task of practical theology, then, is to apply
systematic theology. With it, normativity in theology is still related to this deductive structure.
The obvious problem with this, which also underlies the empirical turn in theology, is
among other things the role of everyday experiences, and the practice field outside
universities. Many practical theologians have tried to work out approaches that could take this
into account more rigorously – and doing so without selling out on the role of scripture and
tradition for theology. Don Browning’s critical correlation model was an early attempt to
conceptualize an alternative practice-theory-practice scheme.62 Richard R. Osmer launched
the consensus equilibrium model in an attempt to identify core intellectual operations that
distinguish PT as an academic discipline from other forms of theology.63 Andrew Root and
Kenda Creasy Dean have advocated a theological turn in the field of youth ministry,
elaborated as theological reflection on experiences of God’s action.64 Many more examples
could be given. Ultimately, I see the aim in all these models as more or less similar: to
reconnect experience to theological reflection, and with that, practice to theory.
Browning's model is interesting for our purpose for a number of reasons. Firstly,
because he claims that all theology is, or at least ought to be, fundamentally practical.
Theological reflection, according to Browning, starts and ends in practice.
61
Friedrich Daniel Ernst Schleiermacher and Heinrich Scholz, Schleiermachers kurze Darstellung des
theologischen Studiums (Leipzig: Deichert’sche Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1910).
62
Don S. Browning, A fundamental practical theology: Descriptive and strategic proposals (Minneapolis:
Fortress Press, 1991).
63
Richard Robert Osmer, Practical theology: An introduction (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2008). He
developed four distinguishable, yet interconnected moves or moments within practical theology:
Descriptive/Empirical, Interpretive, Normative, Practical/Pragmatic. The most interesting thing, however, is not
these moves or moments, but what he later developed as four theoretical pre-determinations that to a great extent
will govern these moves. These are: Theory and Praxis relationship, Sources of justification (Scripture, tradition,
experience and reason), Theory of divine and human action, Interdisciplinary reflection. For more, see: Tony
Jones, The Church is flat. The relational ecclesiology of the Emerging church movement (Minneapolis: The JoPa
Group, 2011), 22ff.
64
See for instance: Andrew Root and Kenda Creasy Dean, The theological turn in youth ministry (Downers
Grove, IL: IVP Books, 2011), 43ff.
28
The view of theology I have outlined should not be seen as simply a subspecialty called
practical theology. [...] I will be claiming that Christian theology should be seen as practical
through and through and at its very heart. Historical, systematic, and practical theology (in the
more specific sense of the term) should be seen as subspecialties of the larger and more
encompassing discipline called fundamental practical theology.65
Secondly, he coins the term "strategic practical theology", which not only serves a
fourth and final movement in his model, but also is articulated as the main concern of his
book.66 For Browning there is no separation of strategy from theology. Theology is
fundamentally strategic and strategy is at its best theological:
I use the phrase strategic practical theology to convey the complex, multidimensional
character of this movement in theology. This is where ministers and lay persons who think
about practical life of the church really function. Here they make incredibly complex
judgments of the most remarkable kind. If they are good practical thinkers, the richness and
virtuosity of their work can contribute greatly to both the life of the church and the common
good beyond it. Such persons are worth studying, understanding, and emulating.67
A third reason for listening to Browning is his well-established model of four
movements in theological reasoning: A first descriptive movement centers on understanding
practice in theological terms. A second historical movement centers on understanding
scripture and tradition. A third systematic movement aims at synthesizing the first two
horizons. The fourth and final movement is a strategic movement.
As much as I do not support every aspect of Browning's model, for instance his claim
that all theology ought to be fundamentally practical, I do find it helpful in this study.
Browning's model is often mistakenly portrayed as a tidy circular process from description,
through historical investigation and systematic reflection, before ending in strategies. Such an
understanding would however undermine the significance and complexity present in all four
of his movements. Browning's circle could however be approached as a never-ending spiral.
This, then, could function as a vision of a type of conversation where empirical research,
historical and systematic theological reflection, together with cunning strategizing takes part
in the same conversation. That would be the kind of vision this study happily would partake
in.
As for this study, it could be understood to contribute to one, possibly two, movements
in Browning's model: as an attempt to describe and understand strategic theology in a specific
practice context. Its contribution to traditional theology is thereby in the hands of the wider
research community. If scholars equipped with the tools available in biblical, historical, and
65
Browning, A fundamental practical theology, 7f.
Ibid., 54ff.
67
Ibid., 55.
66
29
systematic theology would choose to contribute to a fundamentally practical theological
discourse on discipleship, this study could at least serve as an empirically informed starting
point. The primary ambition of the study is however to improve the use of discipleship
vocabulary in the given context through empirical description and practical theological
reflection.
1.3
Empirical interest: unit of analysis and methodological approach
This chapter describes the empirical interest that underlies this study: the sample, the context,
the unit of analysis, and the material obtained from two data sources. It is structured
according to the various elements in the phrase “the use of discipleship vocabulary on a
strategic level in Norwegian Christian youth organizations” – a phrase used in the research
question (1.1.4). In this I seek to situate the dissertation in a particular empirical context, and
to establish the material in such a way that the relation between this context, the research
question, the material and the following research strategy becomes evident.
Section 1.3.1 describes how the discipleship phenomenon in the practice field
translates to the “use of discipleship vocabulary” as a researchable unit of analysis. Section
1.3.2 presents the sample of organizations as Norwegian Christian Youth organizations, and
explains why this context has relevance and significance for the unit of analysis. Section 1.3.3
qualifies the choice of the strategic level as primary context in these organizations. Section
1.3.4 describes how official documents is a data source to the strategic level, and Section
1.3.5 explicates how executive interviews serves as an indirect data source to the strategic
level.
30
Material 1:
Official documents
(Ch. 1.3.4)
Use of discipleship vocabulary...
(in the practice field) (Ch. 1.3.1)
... on a strategic
level (Ch. 1.3.3)
... in Norwegian Christian youth
organizations (Ch. 1.3.2)
Material 2:
Transcripts of
interviews with
Executives
(Ch. 1.3.5)
F IG U R E 1: U N IT O F A N A L Y S IS , IT S C O N T E X T , A N D D A T A S O U R C E S
1.3.1 The use of discipleship vocabulary...
In the initial phases of the study I fumbled around in search for ways to express and pinpoint
my unit of analysis. In turn I tried out various phrases, such as concepts of discipleship,
theologies of discipleship, strategies of discipleship, images of discipleship, and discipleship
metaphors, discipleship discourses etc. They were however omitted, one after the other, due
to what seemed as a lack of sufficient precision to accommodate an empirical investigation.
One step towards what seemed as a firm unit of analysis was taken with the distinction
between phenomena and noumena. Discipleship, as I regard having both theological and
practical qualities, could easily be placed in both categories, but not without consequences for
research design. As opposed to much of earlier theological research on discipleship I was
eager to chose and emphasize the former.
After having become acquainted with the tradition of analytical semiotics, I was
convinced that the very word /disciple/ (and cognates) should be part of my unit of analysis.
A word is often given as a basic example of a sign in semiotics. This kind of recontextualizing
seemed to make discipleship a tangible empirical unit and also opened it up for various
analytical strategies. Through further study of semiotic theory, and especially that branch
called Pragmatics I was able to articulate "the use of discipleship vocabulary" as my unit of
analysis.
31
So, what is meant by "discipleship vocabulary"? Ultimately, any morphological
construction that directly is associated with discipleship could be included in such an
understanding. Section 2.2 and 4.2 goes more into the details of discipleship vocabulary as an
analytical category and the reasoning behind it. Table 2, at the end of Section 2.3 presents the
occurrences and frequency of discipleship vocabulary in the official documents distributed on
all ten organizations in the sample. Table 4, at the end of Section 4.2.5 gives a detailed
presentation of all the 52 morphological constructions drawn from the 706 unique occurrences
of discipleship vocabulary in the interview transcripts. Figure 3 at the beginning of Chapter 3
compares the two.
The concrete occurrences of discipleship vocabulary in the official documents served
as a starting point for this study. Both in the analysis of official documents and interview
transcripts the term "use" refer to the quantified use (occurrences and frequency etc.), but
perhaps even more interesting, also to the qualitative use (experiences, background,
ideological assumptions, anticipated effects, considerations etc.). Needless to say, there was
more of the latter in the executive interviews than in the official documents.
In the term "use of discipleship vocabulary" I found a tangible entity to start
investigating. However, it was not done without considering its limitations. The non-use was
as interesting as the actual use, low frequency as interesting as high frequency, and
discipleship called by other names was always a possibility I had in mind.68
Although organizations consist of individuals, it should be noted that the unit of
analysis here is not individuals. This is not a study of Christian youths or Christian youth
culture for that matter. Nor is it a study of the official doctrine of churches aiming at larger
society. Organizations, I argue, exist at the intersection of individuals, culture, churches, and
society. The study of organizations, or any organized group of people, has its interest in what
happens in this meeting of subjective and social worlds. One might say that organizations
exist for the sake of bringing subjective interests to public attention, or to give social interests
the support of individual participation. Although Jürgen Habermas argued that any case and
topic fundamentally belonged to an objective-, a social- or a subjective life-world, others have
68
Earlier we saw how, for instance, Wilkins described Paul’s discipleship as a “discipleship in other words”.
There is no one-to-one relationship between the thing and the name – between the use of discipleship vocabulary
and discipleship itself. Still we could assume that the use of discipleship vocabulary is an indication of
discipleship.
32
argued that such a distinction could only be made for analytic purposes.69 The organizations
see themselves, however, as negotiators of the needs in different life-worlds: the voice of
members, the needs in society, and the obligation to steward objective values.
From this perspective, one could view the organizational life-world in terms of an
enterprise of validation in itself: making subjective interests socially communicative. In order
to understand the use of discipleship vocabulary in organizations, one could understand it as
attempts at giving the subjective world a greater audience through the process of strategy
making. The point here is not to determine our unit of analysis categorically, but to indicate
the fields of tension to which our unit of analysis relates; between individual and communal
aspects, between subjective, social, and objective life-worlds, between individualistic,
communitarian, and universalist normativity. The alteration and negotiation between these
perspectives are what makes discipleship vocabulary on the strategic level interesting as a
unit of analysis.
1.3.2 ... in Norwegian Christian youth organizations
The sample consists of a) organizations, b) which is involved in youth ministry, c) is also
Norwegian, and d) Christian. I will in the following elaborate and justify the ten selected
organizations according to these four categories.
Organizations have played an immensely important role in the history of Norwegian
youth ministry. Various organizations, not local congregations, have formed and still form the
bedrock of Norwegian youth ministry. Although membership figures are lower than in the
heydays of the late 1970s, youth ministry in Norway is to a large extent done in relation to,
and in extension of, organizations. Even congregational youth work is predominantly run in
collaboration with one of the many youth organizations. These organizations, despite their
importance, have to a large degree escaped the attention of scholars.
How meaningful is it to call the sample of organizations by this name? To what extent
are these organizations real organizations? The questions ought to be asked since the level of
institution, constitution, staff policy, profile, purpose, size, age, activities, economy,
membership-practice, etc. varies among the organizations involved in youth ministry in
Norway, and consequently across the sample. While some has adapted to a relatively high
69
Jan-Olav Henriksen, for one, claims there is no such thing as an objective, social world. However he has
articulated an interest in a common social world. Jan-Olav Henriksen, “Normative dimensions in empirical
research on religion, values and society,” in Difficult normativity: Normative dimensions in research on religion
and theology, ed. Jan-Olav Henriksen (Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 2011), 20.
33
level of formalization others are more loosely knit networks.70 The Norwegian Children and
Youth Council (LNU) is an umbrella organization for more than 90 non-governmental
organizations, out of which 20 have a Christian basis.71 There are in addition as many as 2030 other nationwide Christian organization-like networks etc. that for different reasons choose
not to be members of the LNU. Out of the ten organizations in the sample, four is intuitively
recognized as organizations (Changemaker, KRIK, Laget, Norges KFUK-KFUM), although
one of them, according to the strategy documents, is in the process of transforming from an
organization to a movement.72 Additional three organizations are questionably not
organizations, as they see themselves as movements more than organizations (Substans,
Korsvei, Ungdom i oppdrag). The last three organizations in the sample would probably
better fit the description of a youth-department in a denomination (Misjonsforbundet Ung,
Norges unge katolikker, and Trosopplæringen).
In the following I refer to all ten as organizations. In order to justify this, I draw on
Lester L. Salamon and Helmut K. Anheier's “structural/operational” definition for
organizations in the non-profit sector. Their typology of organizations is based on observable
features of an organization, and thereby makes definition an empirical, not ontological
question. Their definition proposes that a non-profit organization has the following five key
characteristics:
•
•
•
•
•
It is formal: the organization is institutionalized in that it has regular meetings,
office bearers and some organizational permanence.
It is private: it is institutionally separate from government, though it may receive
some support from government.
It is non-profit distributing, and if a financial surplus is generated it does not
accrue to owners or directors.
It is self-governing and therefore able to control and manage its own affairs;
It is voluntary: there is at least some degree of voluntary participation in the
conduct or management of the organization, such as in the form of a voluntary
board of directors.73
70
Expectation to a high level of formalization becomes relevant for many organizations in order to qualify for
state funding Norwegian law demands, for instance, an annual report that includes an approved balance sheet, a
democratic system of board election and annual general assembly, and membership approved by personal
signature and written receipt of paid membership due for every member. State funding is predominantly based
on members aged twenty-six years and younger.
71
www.lnu.no (downloaded June 11, 2012).
72
Laget, “Fra Organisasjon til bevegelse. Lagets strategiplan 2012-2016” (2012)
73
Lester M. Salamon and Helmut K. Anheier, “In search of the non-profit sector. The question of definitions,”
Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations 3, no. 2 (1992). Salamon and Anheier
developed their definition in response to other definitions of non-profit organizations that had been either legal
(formal registration and status), economic (sources of the organization’s resources) or functional (type of
34
To discuss this a bit further: In line with Salamon and Anheier’s criteria of
organizational structure one could identify four types of Norwegian Christian youth
organizations, according to organizational profile and belonging. The first type is the youth
departments of traditional lay-church movements.74 Many of the former children’s and youth
departments were redefined as independent organizations following changes in the regulation
concerning state funding in 1998. A second type is youth work and leadership training
following confirmation in local congregations within the Church of Norway. More and more
of this work is now organized in relation to Trosopplæringen (Eng.: Christian Education in
the Church of Norway).75 A third type of Christian youth organization is found in free-church
denominations, while a fourth type could be called ecumenically open parachurch
movements. All of these are represented in the sample.
Salamon and Anheier’s criteria of organizational operation could be used to discern
between the organizations in the sample, according to what they in fact organize. This is a
more subtle kind of differentiation, but one that became increasingly relevant for analysis in
this study. Some organizations in the sample see themselves as associations of individuals
(members/affiliates); others picture themselves as unions of (local) groups; and others again
have a self-understanding of being organizers of activities/practices. Categorizations like this
one might be helpful on one level, but they also represent some definite limitations. Although
there seems to be a mix of all three operational focuses in most organizations in the sample;
there still appears to be a clear tendency towards one of them in most organizations.
activities undertaken by the organization). David Lewis has evaluated the “structural/operational” definition of
Salamon and Anheier. He argues that in general terms it fits better with the various types of organizations
accorded non-profit status in different contexts around the world, than the alternatives. Lewis points out one
limitation in what he sees as a tendency to favor an exclusive level of formality and to present a too static picture.
However, this is not enough to alter his enthusiasm: “I tend to agree with Vakil (1997: 2059) that out of all the
definitions found in the literature, the structural /operational definition ‘would probably be most useful in
defining NGOs as well’. (...) The structural/operational definition is also useful in that it allows representation of
broad voluntarist values which normally exist even in the most professionalized NGOs which retain a trace of
this ethos in the voluntary participation of governing body members.” David Lewis, Management of nongovernmental development organizations, 2nd ed. (New York: Routledge, 2007), 47.
74
These movements had their rise from 1842 and onwards. They were established in the aftermath of the great
awakenings, with a missionary commitment, and located in prayer houses. Contrary to the development in other
Scandinavian countries, these organizations remained within the State church in Norway. These organizations
have played a vital part in youth ministries in prayer-houses, on camps and festivals – but also in the local
congregations in the Church of Norway.
75
In 2003 the Norwegian parliament passed a reform of Christian education (Norw. Trosopplæringsreformen).
After a five-year period of experimentation, Trosopplæringen now has a more stable constitution. The ambition
of the reform is to reach 70% of all baptized children and youth with baptismal education. This is a considerable
challenge as 75% of all Norwegian children are baptized. The ambition is that the child/youth receives 315 hours
of baptismal training in their congregation before the age of eighteen. This has led to a situation where local
churches for the first time have the resources to do their own youth ministry, apart from the youth ministry
organizations. Trosopplæringen is centrally organized by the Norwegian Church council, and is included in my
sample.
35
There is also a mix when it comes to structural types in the sample. Young people
today are more mobile and less loyal to one particular organization than before. It is worthy of
note that several of the organizations in the sample are ecumenically open on one level and
bound to one confession on another.
In a similar fashion we ought to ask in what sense these organizations in fact are youth
organizations? Most people would intuitively reckon all of the selected organizations,
possibly except Korsvei, as youth organizations. But this could be contested. Laget,
Changemaker, and perhaps KRIK, are by statistical standards the only youth organizations in
the sample. All their activities and groups are exclusively meant for teenagers and students.
Misjonsforbundet Ung, Norges unge katolikker, and Trosopplæringen organize both youth
and children, with a slight domination of children. Norges KFUK-KFUM organizes groups
and activities for children, youth, and adults. According to the biannual report, there are at
least as many children- and adult members and groups for children and adults, as there are
youth members and groups for youth.76 KRIK is also moving towards a similar situation as the
initiatives directed towards families (adults and children) presently have an astonishing
growth. (KRIK organizes eight annual family-festivals throughout Norway).
Things are a bit different in Substans and Ungdom i oppdrag. Both these organizations
are commonly affiliated with youth and youth culture. My informants from the respective
organizations did however argue against this notion. The interviewee from Substans claimed
they regarded themselves an organization for everyone, and young adults in particular. For
him it was important that their subcultural esthetic expressions should not be mistaken for
teenage-culture. The interviewee from Ungdom i oppdrag claimed that despite the mentioning
of "Youth" in the organization's name, they saw themselves as a missions-organization, not a
youth organization. He claimed that they had very little work directed towards youth.
There are, as we have seen, reasons to contest the notion of the youth organization, in
general and as a selection criterion. When I still attend to the category of youth organizations
as a selection criterion, it is in the widest possible sense, as an organization involved in youth
ministry.
The inclusion of Korsvei in this study must be seen in light of this. As opposed to the
nine others – Korsvei is not widely recognized as a youth organization, but as an organization
76
Norges KFUK-KFUM, “KFUK-KFUM toårsmelding 2009-2010” (2011), 24.
36
for all age groups and predominantly adults. I have, however, included this organization,
based on the following rationale:
Firstly, Korsvei is involved in youth ministry, and has not created a youth
organization/-department of its own. Its youth ministry is structurally and strategically
included in the mother organization. If Korsvei had established a youth department of its own,
like many comparable organizations done (e.g. Kirkens Nødhjelp and Normisjon etc.), I
would never have included Korsvei in the sample. This was however not the case.77
Secondly, Korsvei has a self-understanding of representing a kind of spirituality that is
relevant for youth. In the initial talk I had with board member and Ten-korsvei initiator Lars
Breivik Hellerdal he made it clear that there was no urgent need to contextualize Korsvei's
spirituality or theology in order to better fit their youth ministry. I also picked up a similar
conviction from other representatives in the movement. Tone Stangeland Kaufman, for
instance, who succeeded Grønvik as Korsvei Minister and who also is a practical theological
researcher, has described this in an article called A New Old Spirituality for Youth Ministry?
Christian Discipleship and Practice in the Norwegian CrossRoad Movement.78 Here she asks
why (not whether) Korsvei is considered relevant by an increasing number of people,
including youth. By doing so, she admittedly argues that Korsvei's spirituality already is
relevant to young people:
The present article rather argues that a cultural climate of subjectivization also within the
Christian context in Norway has led to the negotiation of tradition and to old spiritual practices
being approached in a new way, here called retraditionalization. It further suggests that the
new old spirituality of the CRM [Korsvei] might be considered a resource for youth ministry
in a time when an emphasis on spiritual practice and communities has entered the curriculum
of youth ministry.79
As much as Korsvei is not commonly thought of as a youth organization, I included it
as such based on these two arguments: Youth ministry is structurally included in the
organization and their spirituality is regarded relevant for youth ministry.
77
This became evident in the recruiting process. My initial intention was not to include Korsvei, but TenKorsvei – which I at the time mistakenly though of as a youth department in its own right. Ten-Korsvei is a
parallel track for teens on the annual festival, and had on the time of the interview experimented with a
longitudinal leadership-training program ("Disciples on the road") for teens between festivals. I contacted Lars
Breivik Hellerdal as head of both initiatives – but also being member and vice-chairman of the Korsvei board. In
his understanding it was awkward to include Ten-Korsvei as an organization in this study. To him, a TenKorsvei initiative was a Korsvei initiative. In that sense I regard Korsvei as an organization involved in youth
ministry, although their main focus is on all generations.
78
Tone Stangeland Kaufman, "A new old spirituality for youth ministry: Christian discipleship and practice in
the Norwegian CrossRoad Movement," Journal of Youth and Theology Vol. 11. (1-2) s. 40-58 (2012)
79
Ibid.
37
Norwegian implies a double delimitation: national, as opposed to international, and
nationwide as opposed to local or regional. It is on a national level that many of the strategies
are developed for local work. And it is the national level that relates to the wider international
network. For a long time I thought an international sample would have been preferable. I soon
abandoned that idea for practical reasons. I also realized that a Norwegian sample to some
extent represents a variety comparable to the variety in other countries in the western world.
There are of course distinct features to organized youth ministry in Norway, following the
strong position of Lutheranism, the strong position of the Church of Norway, and the fact that
many of the youth organizations affiliate with it. I have tried to keep this in mind in the
sampling to enhance transferability to an international scene.
Christian is arguably not an appropriate description for any organization but because
of the object of study, a minimum of interest in Christian faith and theological reflection was
required in the interview situation. The sampled organizations are the kind of organizations
one would expect to potentially be interested in Christian discipleship. A self-understanding
of being a Christian organization is uncontested among the sampled organizations. This is
also the case in Changemaker, although not without some internal debate (Se 3.1 for more on
this).
1.3.3 ... on the “strategic level”
The previous chapter described and to some extent discussed how the selected organizations
fit a description of being Norwegian Christian Youth organizations. This dissertation does
however not intend to describe, let alone analyze, the discipleship phenomenon as it occurs on
all levels in these organizations. Organizations are highly complex units. They comprise
individuals, groups, and activities locally, regionally, and centrally, and each organization
represents varieties of cultures and practices. In order to limit the scope I use the notion of
organizational levels, and find in particular the concept of a strategic level useful. The
strategic level, I argue, is an identifiable and manageable entity across the sample of
organizations. Without entering into a discussion about organizational levels in general, I will
claim that such a thing as a strategic level is perceptible in all the sampled organizations.
This line of thinking draws on Henry Mintzberg's classic formulation of organizational
structure. In his book The structuring of organizations he argues that organizations consist of
five basic parts: an operating core, a strategic apex, a middle line, a techno-structure, and a
38
support staff.80 It would of course have been possible to study discipleship as phenomenon in
any of these five parts. And the findings of such a study would possibly and probably deviate
from the ones in this study. This study is however limited to the strategic level. It draws on
Mintzberg notion of "the strategic apex" of organizations. For Mintzberg, the strategic apex
consists of "those people charged with overall responsibility – the chief executive officer
(whether called president, superintendent, Pope, or whatever), and any other top-level
managers".81 A similar line of thinking underlies my own inclusion of interviews with
executives as voices (at least indirectly) of the strategic level of organizations:
The strategic apex is charged with ensuring that the organization serve its mission in an
effective way, and also that it serve the needs of those people who control or otherwise have
power over the organization (such as owners, government agencies, unions of the employees,
pressure groups).82
From this I reckon the strategic level as a level of servanthood: serving not only
members in the operating core and middle line, but also in service for the level of owners
(national board, general assembly etc.), which usually represents the very summit of
organizational hierarchy and power.
Strategy as a term comes from Greek language. It refers to leading (Gr: αγω) what is
spread out (Gr: στρατος), originally denoting the general’s disposition over his army, but
soon adapted to other and broader contexts. The strategic level of an organization is in this
study thus located between the visionary and legislating level on the one hand, and the handson operations of organizational members and units on the other. (The general is so to say
located on the battlefield, not retired in Rome like the emperor, and not in active combat like
the soldier.) Today, being an executive at the strategic level is of course very different from
that of a general. Mintzberg poses that the role entails three sets of duties: Firstly, it entails
direct supervision with the organization; secondly, management of the organization's
boundary conditions – including its relationship with the environment, and thirdly, what
relates to the development of the organization's strategy.83
This view, that development of organizational strategy is a duty of the strategic apex,
does however not represent or presuppose a traditional or linear view of strategy formation. A
traditional view of strategizing is often envisioned as a linear process, one that is logical,
80
Henry Mintzberg, The structuring of organizations: A synthesis of the research, The Theory of management
policy series (Englewood Cliffs, N.J: Prentice-Hall, 1979), 18ff.
81
Ibid., 24.
82
Ibid., 25. Interestingly, Mintzberg's model does not seem to include for instance the national board in-, but
above the strategic apex, although this is inevitably de facto the case in many organizations.
83
Ibid.
39
objective, rational, dynamic, and governed from above.84 The executives are in this view
reckoned as initiators and given the upper hand in the strategy formation process. In
opposition to a view of strategy imposed from above, Mintzberg famously articulated strategy
as "a pattern in a stream of decisions".85 Furthermore, Mintzberg distinguished intended from
realized strategies, whereas the realized strategies could either be deliberate (and intended) or
emergent (and unintended).86
Research, including that of Mintzberg, seems to suggest that the formation of
organizational strategy in most cases takes the form of emerging, complex and often obscure
processes influenced by numerous sources.87 While initiative to developing strategies often is
taken from above in the organization, the forces that eventually influence strategies are often
emerging from below in the organization, or as often conditioned by forces from outside the
organization. For the same reason contingency theory is apprehended a paradigmatic "normal
science" in the study of organizational structure and strategy.88
This dissertation is however not primary interested in understanding the strategyprocesses or influencing forces on organizational strategy formation. No matter how
interesting such a study would have appeared, it would have required a quite different overall
research design.89 For now I am simply interested in realized strategy, whether deliberate or
emergent, as it appears on a specific strategic level in the actual sample of organizations. This
does however not imply that I assume that the strategic level is where strategies are made,
influenced, or even adopted. I do however, like Mintzberg, assume that the strategic and
84
For more on the linear model of strategy production, see: Harald Knudsen et al., Strategisk ledelse (Oslo:
Cappelen Damm akademisk, 2015), 181f.
85
Henry Mintzberg, "Patterns in Strategy Formation," Management Science 24, no. 9 (1978)
86
Henry Mintzberg and James A. Waters, "Of strategies, deliberate and emergent," Strategic management
journal 6, no. 3 (1985).
87
For more on this, see: Joseph Lampel et al., The strategy process: Concepts, contexts, cases, 5th ed. (Harlow:
Pearson Education, 2014), 66ff and 159ff; Harald Knudsen et al., Strategisk ledelse (Oslo: Cappelen Damm
akademisk, 2015), 199ff.
88
Lex Donaldson, "The normal science of structural contingency theory," in Studying organization: Theory &
method, ed. Stewart R. Clegg and Cynthia Hardy (London: Sage, 1999), 51.
89
At an early stage I abandoned the idea of studying organizational strategy on multiple levels in organizations,
which would include describing discrepancies in perception between actors and entities on various levels within
one or more organization. I also soon decided not to adopt a longitudinal design in order to describe changes
over time, which could have made strategy-processes an approachable object of study. I also abandoned the idea
of depending heavily on a certain theoretical perspective (psychological, economic, sociological, etc.). These are
all established research strategies within organizational studies that did not seem to entirely fit this project. My
interest and approach is primarily in connection to realized strategies, whether deliberate or emergent, at the
moment in time of the study. I am not interested in changes over time, or changes over space (discrepancy
among different actors). These choices do however set certain limits to what this study could develop knowledge
about, while at the same time open up for other possibilities.
40
executive level has a special overview, interest, and care in organizational strategy – this
being one of their primary duties.90
1.3.4 Material I: Official documents as sources to the strategic level in organization
For the study of the use of discipleship vocabulary on a strategic level in Norwegian Christian
youth organizations I have established two sets of data: official documents and transcripts of
semi-structured interviews with executives in organizations. The two data sets relate and
represent the strategic organizational level in different, yet connected, ways. The official
documents reflect the policy of realized strategy as it formally was at the time of the study.
The interviews represent informed interpretations of the official documents.
Most Norwegian organizations have worked out a number of official documents in
order to describe their identity, strategy, values, etc. These are for the most part easily
accessible online. Some of the more lengthy documents are published in books and pamphlets,
available in libraries. Getting access and gathering official documents was therefore in most
cases a manageable task. At an early stage I gathered all documents I thought would be
important and central for this study from every organization. In order to assure the quality of
the sampled documents, each executive was asked to review and fill out the list of documents
I had obtained from his or her organization.
The various documents came in different forms, ranging from formal (laws, creeds,
etc.) to descriptive (self-presentations, annual reports, organizational history), from
motivational (values, mission statements) to the more operational (plans, curriculums,
working strategies, etc.). I have gathered between three and thirteen documents from each
organization in the sample.91
The documents had several functions.92 First, in the strategic sampling of organizations
I did a brief read-through of official documents from a large number of organizations. Second,
I did a more careful reading of the official documents in the sample which informed the
interview-guides. Third, they served as sources for writing a presentation about each
organization in the sample (2.1). Fourth and finally, I did a syntactic content analysis of the
basic use of discipleship vocabulary in each particular organization (2.2–4).
90
1.3.4 and 1.3.5 wil elaborate how the material (official documents and executive interview transcripts) relate
to this view of an strategic organizational level.
91
A full listing of documents will be given for each organization individually in section 2.1. An overview is
given in section 2.5.
92
The methodological moves outlined in this paragraph will be elaborated on in section 1.5.
41
At one level these documents could be read as end products, as the result of a
negotiation. They represent the best possible presentation of what is agreed on as important –
at this point in time. In representing the common viewpoint they often consist of compromise.
However, following the nature of strategy they try to be clear, and do not leave much room
for nuances.
The problem, but also the potential of approaching the strategic level of organizations
through official documents is that they are, by nature and at the time of scrutiny, fixed and
static. The official documents reflect the policy of realized strategy given at the time of the
study. By nature they show few signs of operant strategies as they become evident in practice,
emergent or deliberate strategic processes in the organizations. Hence, official documents are
sources to the adopted policy of the entire organization, and thereby the vision, mission,
strategy and legislation that executives at a strategic level are set to execute on.
At one point the official documents showed a surprising potential for later
triangulation with the interviews. Some of them, while still valid, were so old that they barely
reflected the state of the organization today. The contrast, due to time lag, between the state
described in these official documents and the state of the organization at the time of my
investigation gave an opportunity to witness development in the strategy-making processes.
Without suggesting that these findings have longitudinal quality, the contrast between the
then and the now opened the interviews as interesting conversations about strategic reasoning
in organizational development.
1.3.5 Material II: Executive interviews as sources to the strategic level in organizations
The interviews with executives took place between October 2011 and May 2012. Each
interview lasted between one and two hours and produced transcripts of 25 pages on average.
The interviews were semi-structured and touched upon three basic areas: One part touched
upon the present state of that organization: experiences of organizational identity and
achievements, challenges and aims. A second part sought for elaboration and background on
specific quotations and topics from the official documents, with a special interest in the use of
discipleship vocabulary. For the sake of flow in the conversation I had to adapt this section to
each interview. In the third part of the interview I tried to open the conversation for talking
about experiences and assumption connected to discipleship in general. Here I tried to follow
the natural flow of conversation, which explains why this part varies from 10 to 90 minutes in
length. Concepts from semiotics, and especially pragmatic theory, structured the interviews to
42
some extent – especially Morris’s terms: origin, uses, and effects. The interviews were
recorded before being transcribed into text.
The interview transcripts relate to the strategic level differently compared to the
official documents. From one side executives in organizations could be viewed as the
embodiment of the strategic level in the organizations' operational line. From another side, it
is obvious that the strategic level and the executives do not overlap completely. The strategic
level is an abstracted level in organizations. The role of the executive (together with others) is
to embody this level and thereby representing it. They do however not embody or represent
organizational strategy as such or the strategy process. They are very rarely the decision
makers or legislators of organizational strategy. Primarily they are set to serve and oversee the
strategies that others have adopted. Their job is also to challenge and initiate change to the
strategic policies to the best of their ability.
Although Mintzberg and others consider executives to represent the strategic level,
their primary role as interviewees is not representing the organizations' strategies. They are
primarily brought in as interview objects because I consider them the most competent
interpreters of their organizations' strategies. I can think of no other role, figure, or unit better
suited to deliver sharp emic perspectives on their organization's strategies. The executives are
by the organizations trusted the responsibility of understanding, negotiating, and acting upon
any condition or circumstance important to organizational strategy. These circumstantial
conditions might come from traditions of the past or an imagined tomorrow, as changes in the
surrounding context or from the change within, as strategic practice or pressure emerging
from below or as strategic policy adopted from above. In Christian organizations, a major part
of the executives' duty, is also to theologically and ideologically interpret the circumstance of
the organization.
The interview guides (see Appendix 2) treat the interviewees according to what is said
above; not primarily as representatives of the strategic level, but as interpreters of
organizational strategy. Part 1 and 2 of the interview concentrate on the official documents,
whether on organizational strategy directly (Part 1) or the use of discipleship vocabulary (Part
2). Part 3 of the interview opens up for a more general conversation about the use of
discipleship vocabulary.
The double hermeneutical approach (Ch. 1.4.3) underscores the same point. An initial
analysis of official documents is followed up by analysis and interpretation of interview
transcripts with executives. The executives are in the interviews treated as the first interpreters
43
of the official documents, with all the limitations this entails. What they say in the interview is
interpreted as interpretation, not as raw data of the strategic level.
In the recruitment of informants I was deliberately seeking persons that formally were
appointed and trusted to be in charge of daily operations by the organizations. At this point I
had already considered two alternative ideas: The idea of interviewing Key figures (or
premise providers as I called them) was abandoned due to complexity. It would take a study
in itself to identify the "real" key figures and key groups of the organizations. The other idea
of recruiting Electives was abandoned for several reasons. First, because not all organizations
has formalized boards (such as Substans at the time); second, because in my view of
organizations (which is in line with Mintzberg) the strategic level definitely sits with the
executive level and only possibly and arguably with national boards etc.; and third, because
my unit of analysis so clearly aims at the strategic level, it seemed irrelevant to interview
people representing the wider membership.
I did also process the term "executive" for quite a while. For a long time I used the
abbreviation CEO, but this seemed to an increasing degree as an impropriate import from
business-vocabulary. The informants all have a common feature in that they are appointed
daily managers (which is a term we have and use in Norwegian) and in charge of the
organizations daily operations. There is simply no title or term that would cover all
designations of the persons in charge of daily operations across the sample. The interviewees
all have different titles: General secretary (Fagermoen, Firing Hvambsal), Daily manager
(Holm, Ree Sunde), Minister (Grønvik), National leader (Kilde Aarebrot, Nordli), Director
(Wirgenes), and Working chairman (Gran Martinsen, Nilsen Rotevatn). The one thing they
have in common is that they are appointed, and in most cases hired, to administer and lead the
organization. "Executives" seemed to best correspond to the criteria of formally appointed by
the organization itself and became my collective title of choice – however debatable.
In most cases it then became self-evident whom to recruit – with some exceptions, I
must say. The recruitment of Wirgenes (Trosopplæringen) and Holm (KRIK) was not 100%
intuitive and needed a judgment on my side. One could have argued that Kristine Aksøy and
44
Kjell Markset would have been alternative choices.93 In both these cases I think the alternative
informants as well as the chosen ones are justifiable.
The recruitment of Gran Martinsen (Norges unge katolikker) and Nilsen Rotevatn
(Changemaker) also needed extra consideration. These two organizations have a structure
without a formal role of a daily manager or executive. Instead they inaugurate a working-/
executive chairman, which are as elects expected to work more or less voluntarily the hours of
a part time executive. Because of these organizations' difference in structure I interrogated
several of their employees and central members, and asked them to point out whom they felt
corresponded to the executive role in their setting. In both cases, their answers were
unanimous: their working chairman.
The category of the executive did however produce a variety across the selection of
informants, regarding age, experience, education, level of influence, level of reflection and
experience about discipleship-phenomenon, and theology in general. I did however stick to
the formal criterion of "executive", as I found this the most self-evident, verifiable and
transparent way to establish the selection of informants – as strategy it did not contest the
actual appointing already done by the organizations.
1.4
Conceptual and analytical framework
This chapter clarifies the philosophical underpinning of this study, and how this relates to the
overall concept and analysis. It is written as an attempt to clarify how the adopted approach to
discipleship as a phenomenon entails certain philosophical preconditions. This way it is an
attempt at being transparent and reflexive about my own operant assumptions. Throughout the
process I have become increasingly aware that my initial approach to discipleship entailed
and still entails more or less qualified assumptions about reality, knowledge, experience,
language, etc.
This chapter could also be read as an attempt to clarify some conceptual choices I have
made along the way. For the sake of stringency I try to make clear how the different elements
of the framework mutually relate, i.e., that the concept of analysis (pragmatics), paradigm of
93
In the case of Trosopplæringen: Wirgenes is director for the Department of congregational development,
which includes Trosopplæringen. Aksøy is however the leader for the section for children, youth and faith
education, which reports to Wirgenes. In the case of KRIK: Holm was the Daily manager of KRIK, whereas
Markset was General secretary. Their positions had equal formal status and power in the hierarchy.
If I had suspected the alternative informants to produce other and deviating answers from the actual informants, I
would most definitely have interviewed them as well.
45
analysis (epistemology and ontology), and strategy of analysis (abduction) inter-relate with
each other and relate to what I have described as unit of analysis.
Pragmatics (Semiotics)
Methodological choices
(C.W. Morris)
Pragmatism
Epistemological assumptions
Critical Realism
Ontological assumptions
In the tradition following C.S. Peirce
B. Danermark et.al.
Line of argument
Abduction as mode of inquiry
Undercoded abduction
(U. Eco)
F IG U R E 2: C O N C E P T U A L A N D A N A L Y T IC A L F R A M E W O R K .
In order to present everything that has to do with methodology collectively, I will
delay the presentation of this topic until the next section (1.5). It is however unavoidable that
some of the underlying methodological choices, especially related to analysis, will come to
the surface in this section.
1.4.1 Theoretical framework for analysis: The Pragmatics of Charles W. Morris
Concepts drawn from the theory of signs, and in particular the work of Charles W. Morris,
has influenced and added perspective to this study in a number of different ways.94 In the
Analytical Semiotic tradition a sign is anything that is interpreted as a sign. Charles S.
Peirce’s famous definition of a sign is: “A sign, or representamen, is something which stands
94
Initially it made me consider discipleship as a sign. It was involved in the articulation of the unit of analysis
and the research question (“vocabulary”). Pragmatics also inspired the formulation and structure of questions for
the interview-guide. The most important aspect, however, is the way pragmatics theory has informed concepts
for analysis.
46
to somebody for something in some respect or capacity”.95 Unlike continental semiotics,
where the sign is understood in a binary relation, analytical semiotics insists that the sign is a
triune and processual relationship.
During the 1940s and 1950s, Morris took up Peirce’s sign theory, but adapted it to his
behaviorist perspectives.96 Morris’ description has remained foundational to this day.97
Semiosis, a term coined by Peirce, was defined by Morris as “a sign process, that is, a process
in which something is a sign to some organism”.98 The three elements of semiosis are: “that
which acts as a sign (sign vehicle), that which a sign refers to (designatum), and that effect on
some interpreter in virtue of which the thing in question is a sign to that interpreter
(interpretant)”.99 Semiotics, according to Morris, is “both a science among the sciences and an
instrument of the sciences”.100 Needless to say, here I make use of it in the latter sense.
A sign, when it is communicated to someone, produces in the receiver another sign
called the interpretant. What the object communicates is not a set of characteristics, but only
the idea of the object. This idea is the foundation of the sign. What makes a sign possible to
interpret is a disposition in the interpreter. The interpretant is this disposition. For
interpretation to be possible, there has to be prior knowledge of the object. The triadic action
which takes place between the sign-vehicle, its object/designatum and the interpretant is
called semiosis.101 When someone perceives a sign, he can anticipate a given situation and can
then prepare himself.102
From this triadic relation of semiosis, Morris derived three new dyadic relations,
which he considered the basic three dimensions of semiosis and semiotics: syntactics studies
the relation between the sign vehicle and other sign vehicles; semantics studies the relation
95
C. S. Peirce’s famous triadic definition of a sign comes in at least in seventy-six different, yet similar,
definitions. See: (http://perso.numericable.fr/robert.marty/semiotique/76defeng.htm: downloaded November 17,
2011). This is one from 1897 seems among the more distinct and is found in the Collected Papers of Charles
Sanders Peirce Volume 2.228. Here quoted in Winfried Nöth, Handbook of semiotics (Bloomington, IN: Indiana
University Press, 1990), 42.
96
Charles W. Morris, Signs, language and behavior (New York: Prentice-Hall, 1946).
97
Nöth, Handbook of semiotics, 48.
98
Morris, Signs, language and behavior, 366.
99
Charles W. Morris, Foundations of the theory of signs, ed. Otto Neurath et al., vol. 1, Foundations of the unity
of science (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1938), 3.
100
Ibid.
101
Semiosis in this sense involves the signifying process: “that which acts as a sign (sign vehicle), that which a
sign refers to (designatum), and that effect on some interpreter in virtue of which the thing in question is a sign
to that interpreter (interpretant),” ibid., 3. See also Morris, Signs, language and behavior, 366.
102
Marcel Viau comments on this: As we see, Morris locates the sign in the perspective of an organism which
adopts a behavior when facing an environment. He makes a considerable effort to free the signification of the
sign from the interpreter’s point of view (which corresponds to the mentalist perspective) in order to place it in a
system of behaviors in which the sign implicates and provokes. For him, a sign has the function of establishing a
relation with a directed behavior in which it is produced and for which it is used. Marcel Viau, Practical
theology: A new approach (Leiden: Brill, 1999), 60.
47
between the sign vehicle and their designatum; and pragmatics studies the relations between
sign vehicles and their interpreters.103 Morris’ broad definition of the scope of semiotics and
his threefold subdivision of the field is still a cornerstone in semiotics.104
All the analytical chapters (2–6) are tied fundamentally to pragmatics in that they
focus on the use of discipleship vocabulary and are more or less indebted to Morris’ theory.
They all share the interest of meaning in the relationship between the sign (discipleship
vocabulary) and the interpretant (discipleship in the understanding of informants). The
content analysis in both chapters 2 and 4 draws to some extent on Morris’ understanding of
syntactics, while the analysis of theological and youth ministry in chapters 5 and 6 in some
ways is informed by Morris’ understanding of semantics.
Pragmatics, one of the descendants of semiotics, is in the European continental
tradition understood in a very broad sense. Jef Verschueren specifies pragmatics as “a general
cognitive, social and cultural perspective on linguistic phenomena in relation to their usage in
forms of behavior”.105 In the analytical tradition, however, pragmatics is defined somewhat
more narrowly as “the systematic study of meaning by virtue of, or dependent on, the use of
language”.106 Still, modern understandings of pragmatics, continental as well as analytical,
tend to become either too wide or too narrow for my purpose. A classic understanding, like
that of Geoffrey Leech, seems more helpful. He understands pragmatics to be “the study of
how utterances have meanings in situations”.107 In this study utterance is understood in
analogy to the term “use of discipleship vocabulary” and situations refers to “ten unique
organizational situations”.
Morris’ classic definition is somewhat broader in scope than Leech’s. Morris
originally envisioned a study that “deals with the biotic aspect of semiosis, that is, with all the
psychological, biological, and sociological phenomena which occur in the functioning of
signs”.108 Later he defined pragmatics as “that branch of semiotics which studies the origin,
the uses and effects of signs”.109 It is from this definition of pragmatics I draw the concepts I
use for analytical purposes, most evidently in chapter 4.
Not too many studies in the discipline of practical theology (PT) have used sign theory.
Robert J. Schreiter, a Roman Catholic theologian, is one exception. Although his approach
103
Morris, Foundations of the theory of signs, No. 1: 6–7.
Nöth, Handbook of semiotics, 48.
105
Jef Verschueren, Understanding pragmatics (London: Arnold, 1999), 7.
106
Yan Huang, Pragmatics (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007), 2.5.
107
Leech, Principles of pragmatics, x.
108
Nöth, Handbook of semiotics, 52. Morris, Foundations of the theory of signs, No. 1: 30.
109
Morris, Foundations of the theory of signs, No. 1: 30. Morris, Signs, language and behavior, 365.
104
48
and usage of semiotics differs substantially from mine, it has been most enlightening to
follow his line of thinking. His aim is to develop methodology for the “localization” of
theology – what he sees as “the reflection of Christians upon the gospel in light of their own
circumstances”.110 Under ideal circumstances, he claims, the process of constructing local
theologies begins with a study of culture, and in order to analyze culture Schreiter makes use
of semiotics.111
Despite finding Schreiter’s work inspiring, I will not use him in the following. I do for
instance think he operates too freely between Analytical/American, Continental/French and
Formalist/Russian Semiotics.112 The underlying (post)-structuralism in continental semiotics is
incommensurable with American pragmatism. Tobin Nellhaus, for one, has argued that while
analytical pragmatism leaves an opening for an external reality, “the Saussurean sign involves
nothing akin to a referent or object, and if it doesn’t exclude the extra-mental world altogether,
certainly gives it no role within the signification process. For this reason alone it cannot be
incorporated into critical realism.”113 On a more practical level Schreiter’s use of semiotics is
somewhat opposite to mine. He starts wide, in a local community, within which he maps the
many signs, codes, messages, and culture(s). In this study, I start more narrowly, focusing on
one single sign/code “discipleship”, and focusing on the origins, uses, and effects of that sign
in ten different organizational contexts.
1.4.2 Paradigm of analysis: American pragmatism with borrowings from critical realism
In his book, Practical Theology: A New Approach, Marcel Viau seeks to give a critical
contribution to the epistemological conditions surrounding the production of PT discourse –
110
For Schreiter, semiotic analysis can be viewed as a simultaneous “decoding” of codes and “recoding” into
meta-language. For this Schreiter develops four steps: “Description and perspective of culture” as either emic
(inside-out view) or etic (outside-in view), “The semiotic description of culture texts”, “Identity in semiotic
description”, and “Social change in semiotic description,” in Robert J. Schreiter, Constructing local theologies
(Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 1985), 60ff.
111
The messages in a culture, he says, emerge through the study of the signs and the codes. Signs are the bearers
of the messages, he claims, while codes/rules are cultural pathways by which these signs travel. Shared cultural
codes, makes signs and hereby communication, meaningful. By investigating the signs and the codes in a culture
text one can start to move toward discerning the messages.
A semiotic domain appears when a complex sign, code, message spreads itself over an area of culture and brings
it together as a constellation of meaning. A semiotic domain could be considered an assemblage of culture texts
relating to one set of activities in culture. A culture, then, can be seen as a series of linking semiotic domains:
religious, economic, political, social, sexual, and so on. Often one or other of the domains will be given priority
over another. Ibid., 68.
112
In an e-mail conversation with Schreiter I asked about this. He answered February 8, 2012: “I would still
continue to use the combination of contributions from the different schools of semiotics. I used the bare outlines
of the tripartite sign-message-code most recently to talk about cultural borrowing and syncretism in an essay that
will be published later this year.”
113
Tobin Nellhaus, “Signs, social ontology, and critical realism,” Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour 28,
no. 1 (1998).
49
with a special interest in incorporating experience.114 Viau claims his goal is to offer an
instrument that allows theological discourses to be anchored in faith practices.115 Viau tries to
establish the relationship between, on one hand, practice, experience, and context, and on the
other, doctrine, institution, and text. The discourse of PT is often torn between institutional
discourse (undermining experience) and experiential discourse (undermining tradition).116
Viau argues that basic research should not only deal with the faith practices of
Christians, but also with the workings of PT as it attempts to take hold and give account of its
practices – in other words as it attempts to produce a discourse. In order to underpin his
project philosophically, Viau turns to American pragmatism.117 The Anglo-Saxon empiricist
philosophical tradition, together with what he calls theological dogmatism, is of little help in
this, he claims. He simply refuses to choose between idea and fact in constructing theological
discourse. His aim is to imagine a theological discourse that upholds a definite empiricist
outlook but without renouncing its theological identity.
Viau is particularly drawn towards the way experience is developed in pragmatism.
This is most relevant for the clarification of the object of the discourse of PT. He argues for
an intermediate position between monism118 and pluralism.119 Human experience is neither the
essence of an object, nor outside and detached from the object itself, Viau claims, quoting
William James: “The parts are percepts, built out into wholes by our conceptual additions.
The percepts are singulars that change incessantly and never return exactly as they were
114
Viau, Practical theology: A new approach. His book is a volume in the “Empirical studies in theology” series,
with Johannes A. van der Ven as editor.
115
Ibid., xix. It is also his uttered wish that his reflexion might be useful to any researcher in philosophy or
science open to the question of discourse as it arises from human activity, whatever that activity might be.
116
In earlier times, Viau argues, there was little discrepancy between what the theologian said and what the
pastor did. One built a coherent vision; the other put it into practice. Today, by contrast, there is a considerable
discrepancy between theological reflexion and pastoral action. This situation has led to a rift between
intellectuals and those at work in the field, Viau claims. Ibid.
117
The origin of Pragmatism goes back to Protagoras. William James is without doubt the most prominent
Pragmatist and undisputed key figure the movement. A series of conferences published in 1907 in a still famous
book entitled Pragmatism put its principles officially into circulation. William James, Pragmatism: A new name
for some old ways of thinking: Popular lectures on philosophy (New York: Longmans, Green and Co., 1907).
James on his side identified Charles Sanders Peirce as the founder of Pragmatism. John Dewey, another
prominent figure within Pragmatism defines Pragmatism (following James) as a method that emerges at the
confluence of three long philosophical traditions: Empiricism, Nominalism and Utilitarianism. (John Dewey,
“Chapter 12: What pragmatism means by practical,” in Essays in experimental logic (Chicago: University of
Chicago, 1916), 305. According to Viau, Pragmatism has exercised as great an influence on contemporary North
American philosophy as Structuralism and Existentialism have on French philosophy.
118
Which he understands as the belief that the universe is constituted in a single unit of existence, that the whole
is fundamental, while the parts are only derivatives.
119
Which he understands as the belief that the universe is constituted by the sum/the flow of countless parts that
are separated from one another.
50
before. This brings an element of concrete novelty into our experience.”120 For the pragmatist,
experience is neither a mental reality different from the rest of the cosmos, nor an exclusively
private entity. Experience is part of the cosmos, a manifestation within the cosmos, and the
cosmos thus experienced gives rise to theories and categories that allow it to be known.121
This way, Viau claims, pragmatism re-establishes the dynamic aspect of experience in
PT inquiry.122 His perspectives on epistemology in relation to the object of PT inquiry, and
especially how he finds place for experience in PT epistemology, appeals to me. Concerns
similar to his own are implied in my approach to discipleship as a phenomenon: Discipleship
is more than a theological idea. Discipleship is interpreted and reinterpreted again and again
through history. It is a sign involved in a language game open to empirical research.
A common way to see the pragmatist approach to inquiry is as a search for warranted
assertions that may be taken as warranted until demonstrated otherwise. This is a reflection of
the anti-representationalist epistemology that pragmatism espouses, seeing knowledge as our
learned response to our environment instead of an accurate representation of our reality. I
would however reject that this is the same as excluding the possibility for an extra linguistic
reality connected, in this case, to discipleship vocabulary – or to theology in general, for that
matter.
As much as I agree with Viau on raising epistemological awareness in PT and
incorporating experience as part of the object itself, it does not have to be done without
explicitly clarifying surrounding ontological assumptions. With Viau, I regard it as essential
to elaborate the role of experience in theology, but not in a way which dismisses a reality
beyond experience, yet somehow connected to experience. In theological terms this is linked
to creation, incarnation, and revelation. God has made himself available and part of our reality.
At the same time, God is always more.
I find it necessary, therefore, to continue where Viau left off on the question of
ontology. Today it is assumed that pragmatism tends to prioritize epistemology (and practice)
over ontology, but this is not necessarily so. Not even the founding fathers of pragmatism
seemed to agree about the nature of physical reality: Peirce, for one, claimed that pragmatism
had no metaphysical implications and he would therefore not espouse a position on the
“reality” of the physical world. William James claimed pragmatism sees reality in a constant
120
William James, Some problems of philosophy: A beginning of an introduction to philosophy (New York:
Longmans, Green, 1911), 98.
121
Viau, Practical theology: A new approach, 23.
122
Ibid., 39.
51
state of flux, implying it never to be “real”, but always changing. George Herbert Mead, on
the contrary, tended towards realist ontology through his symbolic interactionist lens.123 It has
also been observed that authors falling into the pragmatist camp may be located anywhere
along a realist–pluralist continuum.
Critical realism, which is what I suggest to pair up with pragmatism, tends to advocate
the opposite – to prioritize ontology over epistemology. I do however agree with those who
think the two, pragmatism and critical realism, could work together.124 Richard Rorty, a
notable (neo-)pragmatist, makes it clear that he does not question the existence of physical
reality, only our representations of it.125
Andrew Root, a PT scholar, argues explicitly that critical realism suggests that
ontology should be brought to the forefront at the expense of epistemology. Nevertheless I
actually find his arguments even more helpful for joining critical realist ontology with
pragmatic epistemology. He proposes three overarching commitments in a critical realist
approach. Firstly, he proposes that critical realism is a kind of realism in that “it claims that
there are entities that are real in the world that exist outside what can be known. Reality itself
exists independent of any epistemological structure.” He says this, however, to heighten, not
lower, the status of experience in PT: “This experience is connected to a higher stratum of
reality that might even be called God”.126 Secondly he proposes that critical realism is critical
in the sense that it is epistemically relativist: “it asserts that there is no conclusive
epistemological foundation that can know reality fully”.127 And thirdly, it is critical in the
sense that as much as it asserts that there is a real world, the “experiences of reality that we
forge into epistemologies are not all equal”. “It asserts that some epistemological perspectives
are better than others.” This is for Root an opening for us to “make judgments about reality,
but never from a safe place outside the mysterious confusion of being in reality”. 128
I do not see that the pragmatism of Viau and the critical realism of (for instance) Root
are incommensurable. When in the following I trace the use of discipleship vocabulary by
organizations and informants I place high value on their experiences. As much as I
123
This paragraph draws heavily on Ryan DeForge and Jay Shaw, “Back- and fore-grounding ontology:
Exploring the linkages between critical realism, pragmatism, and methodologies in health & rehabilitation
sciences,” Nursing Inquiry 19, no. 1 (2012): 87.
124
See for instance: Osmo Kivinen and Tero Piiroinen, “The relevance of ontological commitments in social
sciences: Realist and pragmatist viewpoints,” Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour 34, no. 3 (2004);
DeForge and Shaw, “Back- and fore-grounding ontology”.
125
DeForge and Shaw, “Back- and fore-grounding ontology,” 87f. See also Kivinen and Piiroinen, “The
relevance of ontological commitments,” 243.
126
Andrew Root, Christopraxis: A practical theology of the cross (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2014), 192.
127
Ibid., 223.
128
Ibid., 232.
52
acknowledge (the possibility) of a reality to discipleship other than that of the knower, I also
fully acknowledge that the only access we have to this reality is through reflection and
experience – and this is again bound to language. In the case of discipleship I simply assume
that the realities of discipleship are partially accessible through inquiry and formulation. This
is in fact the only access we have. Still I would never challenge the assumption that we then
get hold of all there is to say about discipleship. I will simply not shut the door to the
possibility of an extra-linguistic reality.
To take notice of the provisionality and social contextuality of theological propositions
as well as respecting their referential nature and attempts at making reliable cognitive claims
might in some cases be a good way forward. Critical realism warrants theology its
propositions on experiences through language, metaphors, and models. Theological
propositions could this way accommodate and account for human experiences in a way that
does not contradict the role played by scripture and traditions.
This study, like any study, is therefore in semiotic terms bound to study connotations,
not denotations, which I believe are always beyond our reach. Just by doing so, however, we
might in fact get a small, fresh glimpse of a reality.
1.4.3 Mode of analysis: Description through abduction and double hermeneutics
Charles S. Peirce is not only the father of pragmatism and the originator of analytical
semiotics – he also developed the mode of inference called abduction. As for pragmatism,
semiotics – and critical realism – abduction is said to mediate dualisms of ultimate reality and
empirically observable reality, knowledge, and action, and practice and theory.
Abduction is often explained as a methodological process of moving back and forth
between data and theory. For Peirce and others after him, however, there are more
fundamental things at stake. Unlike deduction, which could be seen as deriving knowledge of
individual phenomena from universal laws, and induction, which could be seen as drawing
valid conclusions from a number of observations, abduction could be seen as the
understanding of something (a phenomenon) in a new way by observing and interpreting it
within a new conceptual framework.129 Danermark et al. therefore describes abduction as
redescription or recontextualization, seeing it as giving already-known phenomena a new
meaning.130
129
Berth Danermark et al., Explaining society: Critical realism in the social sciences (London: Routledge, 2002),
80.
130
Ibid., 91.
53
There is nothing new or unknown in the observable fact that Norwegian Christian
youth organizations use discipleship vocabulary. This study claims, however, that by
recontextualizing discipleship vocabulary within a framework of semiotic theory we might in
fact look at it differently, understand it better, and see its implications. It is in this sense, and
within these limitations, that I would claim it is possible to draw valid conclusions and
develop new understanding about the use of discipleship vocabulary.
Umberto Eco has developed three different uses or categories of abduction depending
on different uses of rule, or interpretive frameworks (overcoded, undercoded, and creative
abduction).131 In overcoded abduction the rule is a given theorem, consciously or
unconsciously applied – often resulting in spontaneous interpretations. This form of abduction
is fundamental to all forms of communication. In creative abduction the aim is to create a
new rule, or theory. This could happen when a researcher observes something from a frame of
interpretation that nobody has used before or that at least opposes conventional interpretations.
Undercoded abduction, which is my category of choice, is to let a (great) number of
different rules/theories cast their light on the phenomenon or event observed. This happens,
Eco claims, whenever there are multiple general rules or theories to be selected from.132 The
researcher then asks what difference each one of them makes, and which one explains the
phenomenon the best. The researcher can also compare, combine, and integrate abduction of
different rules.
Pragmatics is the overarching framework in this study within which I recontextualize
discipleship vocabulary. By doing so, I see a new sign (interpretant) created in the interpreters
(organizations and executives) by the use of discipleship vocabulary. This is the most
important abductive move in this study. I also make a number of smaller recontextualizations
and redescriptions along the way.
•
•
•
In sections 2.2–4 I describe the use of discipleship vocabulary in official
documents in light of their frequency and the organizational context in which they
occur (developed in 2.1).
In chapter 3 I describe the basic assumptions of the informants understood as
interpretants. (This is a term borrowed from Morris’ theory of semiotics.)
In chapter 4 – the main analytical chapter – I conduct a thorough analysis of
discipleship in the interview transcripts from a perspective of Morris’ notion of
pragmatics.
131
Ibid., 89–90.
Umberto Eco and Thomas A. Sebeok, The sign of three: Dupin, Holmes, Peirce (Bloomington, IN: Indiana
University Press, 1983), 206.
132
54
•
•
•
•
•
•
In section 4.3.4 I draw on concepts from Hatch and Schultz’s theory of strategic
organizational leadership to see discipleship vocabulary in a new light.
In chapter 5 I move on and view the pragmatics of discipleship from central
theoretical perspectives in youth ministry research.
In section 5.1 I draw on Ralph Winters two-structure theory of church – and the
concepts of sodality and modality.
In section 5.2 I do a similar analysis, this time borrowing the theoretical concept of
intentionality.
In section 5.3 I let the material meet theoretical ideas on sectarianism in the
literature on damaged disciples
Chapter 6 is a final reconceptualization in which I review the use of discipleship
vocabulary within a theological framework.
As one can see, I let a number of different medium-range theories from social sciences
as well as theoretical perspectives from theology cast their light on the phenomena observed.
Several times during this study I have been challenged by colleagues to be clearer about what
is at stake in the use of discipleship vocabulary, and to take that as a starting point. I have
been partly unable, and partly unwilling, to respond. I have tried to insist on my approach as
driven by curiosity for a deeper and renewed understanding of the use of discipleship
vocabulary as phenomenon. Even Peirce noted in his memoirs that the practice of abduction
in research could resemble the work of a detective. Umberto Eco has compared undercoded
abduction to coming upon a crime scene and, by the use of whatever theory or knowledge
available, move towards conclusions of what in fact has happened, and what is at stake. After
having undertaken this study, I know a bit more about what is at stake in the use of
discipleship – at least, far more than when I started.
Abduction therefore brings the question of conclusions and normativity to the
forefront. Already in the early works of Peirce, abduction was “an inference, which allows the
construction of a claim starting from an observed fact”.133 This way, abduction proceeds
backwards, in terms of logic, from a result or a consequence to a case or antecedent. It
explains a surprising fact. Therefore, the conclusion of abduction is plausible, not certain. In
the model of Stephen E. Toulmin the interrelated components used for analyzing arguments
are highlighted.134 Toulmin pays attention to the gross anatomic structure of the argument as
well as the finer physiological structure. The basic point in Toulmin’s model of argumentation
is to show the inference from data (D) to a claim (C) with the use of a warrant (W).
133
Bettina Pedemonte and David Reid, “The role of abduction in proving processes,” Educational Studies in
Mathematics 76, no. 3 (2011): 281.
134
Stephen Toulmin, The uses of argument (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003), 132.
55
Pedemonte and Reid have rearranged Toulmin’s model for abduction.135 Formal
inference in abduction, according to Pedemonte and Reid, starts from an observable event or
phenomenon. In their model this corresponds to the claim (C).136 From there they proceed
backward with the help of warrants (W) – rules/frameworks/theories, which they match up
with antecedents and cases (D). In the case of Eco’s undercoded abduction they seek the best
possible interpretation of the phenomenon through a number of warrants in combination or
alone:
D: Findings
C: Conclusion/Claim
(phenomenon)
W: rule/framework
When D1èC, D2èC… DnèC
F IG U R E 3: D R A W IN G C O N C L U S IO N S IN U N D E R C O D E D A B D U C T I O N .
As Pedemonte and Reid suggest, I also start with an “observed fact” (C): the use of
discipleship vocabulary within Norwegian youth organizations. For warrants (W) I use
bridging claims derived from the pragmatics/semiotics of Morris and a number of other
theoretical perspectives. My findings (D) could be articulated as the implications of the
informants’ assumptions and experiences. Because I repeat this process many, many times
throughout this study, the result is a moving back and forth between theories and data.
As “a mode of inference”, abduction also has something to say about the kind of
normativity we could expect the claims coming out of this research to have. Ulla Schmidt, as
one of many scholars, has rejected the traditional assumption that normativity should be
separated from empirical research.137 She proposes that it is possible to draw valid normative
claims, especially from lived theologies like those found in Kathryn Tanner’s everyday
135
Ibid., 87ff.
Pedemonte and Reid, “The role of abduction in proving processes,” 281.
137
See for instance: Henriksen, “Normative dimensions in empirical research on religion, values and society” in
his Difficult normativity: Normative dimensions in research on religion and theology (Frankfurt am Main: Peter
Lang, 2011); Paul Leer-Salvesen, “Normative evaluations in theologial ethics” (ibid.). Ulla Schmidt understands
“normativity formally as ‘a property by virtue of which a proposition or set of propositions recommend or
demand that something is being done or abstained from, praised or blamed, believed or denied, pursued or
rejected’.” Ulla Schmidt, “Empirical research and theological normativity” (ibid.), 37. Especially she mentions
Max Weber as one who rejects the possibility of studying actual religious life as normative propositions. By
doing this, Schmidt argues, Weber leaves aside an important aspect of the object, namely the intention and
purpose that partly defines it. He has for instance argued that once allegedly normative valid claims becomes the
object of empirical study, they lose their character as normative claims and are considered merely as existing
facts, as stated rather than as potentially valid or true. Max Weber and Fredrik Engelstad, Verdi og handling
(Oslo: Pax, 1999).
136
56
theology138 and Jeff Astley’s ordinary theology.139 Studying theologies “in the practice field”
implies studying them in terms of potentially invoking reasons and reflections attempting to
back up normative claims. This relates to my material, which consist of (a) strategy
documents from organizations and (b) interviews with the senior national leaders in the same
organizations. My material then is explicitly normative following the nature of strategy and
organization.
Schmidt herself argues that critical realism might in fact explicate and justify the
relevance of empirical knowledge. She draws on the work of J. Wentzel van Huyssteen,
whose notion of critical realism takes notice of the provisionality and social contextuality of
theological propositions as well as seeking to respect their referential nature and attempts at
making reliable cognitive claims. Human experiences, including religious experiences, are for
van Huyssteen the natural starting point for reflection on theological propositions as a basic
epistemic warrant. But experiences are, however, always interpreted and mediated through
language and metaphors. Schmidt suggests that critical realism warrants theology its
propositions on experiences through language, metaphors, and models. Theological
propositions could therefore be able to accommodate and account for human experiences in a
way that does not contradict the role played by scripture and traditions. She finds a
satisfactory middle way in a balance between insights provided by empirical research on
ordinary beliefs and insights made available through comprehensive theory. This leads to a
process of critical reflection that moves back and forth between ordinary beliefs, on the one
hand , and essential theories of interpretative frames on the other. Normative propositions are
then validated in a hermeneutical process.
Still I am not quite satisfied. It might be justifiable to draw valid conclusions from
empirical research, even in theology, but the question remains whether it is wise to do so?
Paul Leer-Salvesen brings David Hume’s famous warning against normative conclusions
drawn from is to ought into the discussion. The problem, he says, is not the ought part – the
normativity. The problem is the is, the universalism. According to Leer-Salvesen, the is
presupposes a criterion of natural for establishing normativity. Instead he suggests an
alternative moral theory, with methodological implications, which enables researchers to have
access to people’s life-worlds. He suggests an understanding of understanding that includes
138
Everyday theology is implicit and explicit theology expressed in social actions and practices (Tanner
1997:70f).
139
Ordinary theology is defined as the “content, pattern and processes of ordinary people’s articulation of the
religious understanding”, while ordinary people refers to those who have not received any particular theological
training (Astley 2002: 56).
57
compassion, sympathy, and empathy, which enables Hume’s concept of fellow feeling. This
could include people’s experiences in normative evaluations.140 Like David Hume, LeerSalvesen opposes the strong position of ratio in moral philosophy and argues that it is only
possible to come up with particular statements, not universals. This opens up for empirical
research in normative disciplines like philosophy and theology, Leer-Salvesen claims, as well
as a dialectic relationship between academia and society.
Leer-Salvesen’s suggestion, which I find the best for formal and moral reasons, is a
“normativity of plausibility”. This implies leaving the last steps into normative preaching to
the church. The role of the scholar, then, is to recommend and suggest, and not to judge.141 I
also see this as being in accordance with conclusions in abduction as plausible, not certain.
The conclusions I have recorded in chapter 7, the answers to the second research question, are
therefore suggestions for improved practice.
This study, therefore, fully acknowledges “the problem of the is”, and not primarily
the “the problem of the ought” as the real problem in the use of discipleship vocabulary.
There is no lack of normative accounts on discipleship that claim to know what it is. A deeper
problem, I think, which I also address by the chosen abductive mode, is a problem of deep
understanding of the phenomenon.
My approach to the same complex is to make use of a double hermeneutics approach.
As I study people (executives) and groups of people (organizations) I acknowledge these as
fellow interpreters, and should be approached as such – not as brute data. Double
hermeneutics has for long been an established approach in social sciences, first ascribed to
Antony Giddens.142 His approach emerges from the realization that nature and culture are
distinctively different. In natural science there is a one-way relationship between researcher
and the object of study. In the social sciences, on the other hand, the objects of study are
people; the objects of study are themselves interpreters. Giddens therefore views the
relationship between “lay” and scholarly a “social cycle”, a dialectic relationship.143 There is a
constant “slippage”, to use Giddens’ own words, between the meaningful social world as
constituted by lay actors and the metalanguages invented by scientists.
140
Leer-Salvesen, “Normative evaluations in theologial ethics,” 69.
Ibid., 65f and 74.
142
Stanley E. Porter and Jason C. Robinson, Hermeneutics: An introduction to interpretive theory (Grand Rapids,
MI: Eerdmans, 2011), 2.
143
Giddens explains that while researchers have often considered the way “in which lay concepts obstinately
intrude into the technical discourse of social science”, “few have considered the matter the other way around.
(...) The ‘findings’ of the social sciences very often enter constitutively into the world they describe.” Anthony
Giddens, Social theory and modern sociology (Oxford: Polity Press, 1987).
141
58
Donald A. Schön, often associated with action-research and organizational studies, has
observed the same widening gap between research and the practice of the professions.
Knowledge produced by research is generally experienced as irrelevant to the professions, he
claims. This is mainly caused by the hierarchical configuration of research and practice.
Research is institutionally separate from practice, and is only connected to it by carefully
defined relationships of exchange. The researcher’s role is distinct from, and usually
considered superior to, the role of the practitioner. Research does not produce general
knowledge, but a particular kind that is relevant within the context of the university. Because
research has isolated itself from the practices of the professions, the knowledge produced does
not address the uncertainty, complexity, instability, uniqueness and value conflict of
professional pluralism.
Geir Afdal has appropriated double hermeneutics to the context of religious education.
He agrees with Schön’s analysis of the practice/research dilemma, however he seeks a more
nuanced solution than that of Schön.144 Afdal’s approach starts with a nuancing of the
concepts of theory and practice. The distinction between school and research, he says, is
described in everyday language as the difference between practice and theory. All scientific
disciplines include a type of social activity, he argues, and should be considered a practice in
itself.145 Because of this, researchers cannot place themselves outside of their objects but must
view themselves as part of what they are doing research on. On the other hand, practitioners
engage in theorization. As key participants in the field of practice, they have theories
concerning their own practice and that of others.146 Afdal’s overall aim is to understand the
dialectical and hermeneutical understanding of the relationship between research and social
practices. He claims that the distinction between scientific theory and theory as formulated
everyday experience is a question of degree, not category.147
Doing social science means engaging in double interpretation: the researcher’s interpretation
of the agent’s interpretations. There is no fundamental separation between our interpretation as
researchers and the agent’s interpretations. Neither is there a fundamental separation of
144
Schön’s radical suggestion is to turn the relationship between research and practice the other way around, and
thereby give the field of practice the upper hand.
145
Viau, Practical theology; Root and Dean, The theological turn in youth ministry.
146
Afdal’s point of departure is Charles Taylor’s understanding of the relationship between theory and practice.
Taylor’s theory on science starts in anthropology, and conception of human beings as responsible agents and
self-interpreting animals. Every agent involved in research (both subjects and objects) is responsible and selfinterpreting, and their interpretations should not be treated as brute data.
147
Geir Afdal, Researching religious education as social practice (Münster: Waxmann, 2010), 119.
59
language. There is a difference, albeit a gradual one, based on the researcher’s aim at finding
an even more coherent account.148
The ordinary language of the other is constitutive for an intersubjective understanding.
And it is this understanding, according to Afdal, that in turn will add validity to the
researcher’s refined account. The quality of that new account, the theory, can only be
determined by whether, or to the degree, it gives the participants of the practice or the human
beings themselves a better and clearer understanding which results in better practice.149 A
strong link has therefore to be established between the understanding of the actors in practice
and the researcher. The researcher has to “go native”, on the one hand, Afdal claims, and to
establish a scientific account, on the other. The role of the researcher is to be a mediator.150
Practical Theology shares, with most other university disciplines, the fundamental
challenge of a divide between the field of research and the field of practice. Serious
consideration of complementary strategies to the traditional deductive modes of theologizing
is long overdue.151 A double hermeneutical approach to PT could be one such response to the
challenge.
Traditionally, the big question of validity in constructing a discourse in PT is
connected to the inner hierarchy of the sources of theology, where the heart of the matter has
been the understanding of the experience/reason relationship.152 In a deductive type of
theology, reason is given superiority over experience, making theology in research superior to
theology in practice. In clear-cut inductive types of empirical theology, there might be a
tendency to rule out reason as source of theology. Both are fallacies, I would say, in that
experience and reason are inseparable. One cannot have one without the other; and they
always come together, both in the field of research and in the field of practice.
148
Ibid.
Ibid., 40.
150
Ibid. To proceed from here, Afdal goes into Activity theory which I do not make use of here. Engeström
(2001) has developed the relationship between research and practice in what he calls third-generation activity
theory. This is a development of Vygotsky’s theory of language and learning, expanding it in a network of
relationships to three other factors: rules that govern the activity system, the community within which the
activity system exists and the division of labour that exists within the activity system. See Yrjo Engeström,
“Expansive learning at work: Toward an activity theoretical reconceptualization” Journal of Education and
Work 14, no. 1 (2001).
151
For a thorough presentation of this problem in PT/pastoral care, see for instance, Afdal, Researching religious
education as social practice, 132.
152
Already in the eighteenth century John Wesley worked out his famous Quadrilateral, the four ways of ariving
at theological conclusions They are: Scripture, Tradition, Experience, and Reason. See for more: Engedal,
“Jakten på sjelesorgens identitet”.
149
60
This is what underlies my choice of abduction and double hermeneutics – but even
more, underlies the fact that the main research question in this study, like the majority of the
following pages, is descriptive, not normative.
1.5
Additional methodological considerations
Although this study insists on being positioned in theology, it is greatly indebted to social
sciences. This is particularly evident when it comes to methodology. I have already insinuated
several of the methodological choices that frame this project (especially in 1.3.4 and 1.4).
This chapter will provide an overview and go more into detail on the sampling process (1.5.1),
the interview (1.5.2), the method of obtaining transcripts and initial analysis (1.5.3). It will
also discuss research quality (1.5.4), and account for some of the ethical considerations I have
taken along the way (1.5.5). Analytical method, beyond what is described here, will be dealt
with in its corresponding chapters.
1.5.1 Sampling and recruitment: organizations, official documents, and informants
Out of a possible thirty to fifty153 nationwide Christian youth organizations in Norway it was
necessary to make a selection. The full sample is presented in section 2.1. The line of
reasoning behind this sampling included five considerations:
Representativeness: The organizations represent a wide variety: old and new; big and
small; confessional, parachurch and ecumenical; membership and non-membership based;
declining and growing. It seemed important that this variety and multitude would be evident
also in the sample.
Strategic considerations: As the frequency of discipleship vocabulary varies greatly
across Norwegian Christian youth organizations, it felt important to include organizations that
ranged from high to low on the frequency spectrum. As an indication of this I looked over the
official documents from a wide range of organizations. In two cases, Laget and
Trosopplæringen, I was convinced about including them. I had observed the shift in their use
of discipleship vocabulary even prior to entering upon this research.
Snowballing: In addition to being representative and strategic, the sampling-process
took on the characteristics of longitudinal (snowball) sampling. The sampling was done over
time. The first interviews were obtained in October 2010 and the last one in June 2012. After
153
The number depends upon the definition.
61
having done one interview I usually thought through which organization would be suitable in
order to get a new voice.
Saturation: One interview I have not made use of, and several more interview
appointments were cancelled, due to saturation. In qualitative research there is no need to
repeat what has already been said. In hindsight I do however to some extent regret not having
included in the sample one or two more organizations that use discipleship vocabulary
frequently. On a few points I assumed more nuances than what the material indicated.
Personal relationship: Finally, some organizations were excluded from the sample for
personal reasons if I had too close an affiliation with the organization154 or with central people
in an organization.155
The official documents were collected prior to the interviews, but the executives had
the opportunity to second-guess the selection. (1.3.4 describes in more detail how the official
documents of organizations were obtained.)
The recruitment of informants consisted of an e-mail with an information letter
attached and a follow-up telephone call a week later. The information letter included some
words about the aim and object of the study, some words about digital recording, the assumed
length of the interview, later storage of data material, etc. They were also informed that they
were interviewed as executives and could not expect anonymity if they chose to accept the
invitation. (See Appendix 1 for a facsimile sample of one of the information letters.) All the
executives I contacted were willing to take part in the interview.
Initially, the plan was to grant the interviewees full anonymity. As the guideline from
the National Committee for Research Ethics in the Social Sciences and the Humanities
(NESH) suggests, any kind of qualitative research that includes interviews is grounded in
respect for the informants – before, during, and after the interviewing process.156 As the
research design progressed and it became clear that my informants would be organizational
executives, anonymity seemed more and more unnecessary. In the interviews they would
answer as representatives, not as persons. The questions would focus on their interpretation of
organizational strategies, etc. The choice did however increase, not decrease, the need for
considerable awareness on my part. To the best of my ability, I have tried to maintain the
154
For instance “Acta – barn og unge i Normisjon”, for which I have worked.
I chose to keep KRIK and Misjonsforbundet Ung in the sample, although I knew these two informants from
before: Vegard Holm (KRIK) and Anne Margrethe Ree Sunde (Misjonsforbundet Ung). The other executives I
had met once or twice prior to the interview or just slightly heard of.
156
“Guidelines for research ethics in the social sciences, law and the humanities” (Oslo: The National
Committee for Research Ethics in the Social Sciences and the Humanities, 2006).
155
62
integrity of the informants (NESH 6), give proper information to the informants prior to the
interviews (NESH 8)157, demonstrate extra respect for the informants and their answers
(NESH 14), and especially for people indirectly involved or mentioned (NESH 11). All the
informants agreed to participate under their full names.
1.5.2 The interviews
The interviews took place where it was suitable for the informants to meet. Five took place in
the office of the informants, two in the homes of the informants, two in a quiet corner of a
café, and one in a chapel. They lasted from 1 hour and 10 minutes up to 2 hours and 30
minutes. The average was approximately 1 hour and 30 minutes. They were conducted in the
Norwegian language.
Our conversation followed a semi-structured interview guide with open-ended
questions and marked by keywords and quotations from the organizations’ official documents.
The interviews were semi-structured and organized in three parts. The first part consisted of
general questions about the organization: status quo, aims, history, etc. The second part
started with formulations drawn from the official documents of that organization relating
somehow to my initial research question. The last part centered on discipleship in general.
Part 1 took fairly similar routes, as many of the questions were alike across all the interviews.
Parts 2 and 3, however, varied considerably. Part 2 varied because it took as starting point
each organization’s documents, and had a special interest on how discipleship was used and
understood in relation to these strategies. Part 3 relied heavily on the interest of the informant
in the subject. Appendix 2 shows a facsimile of one of the actual interview guides.
Now turning to the interviews, it is important to clarify the relationship between the
executives and their organizations. This relationship is complex. On one side, the informants,
by the authority invested in them as heads of operations, are official representatives of their
organizations. In several of the cases it would simply be difficult to find anyone more
appropriate or representative for their organization. Some have held their position for many
years, or even started the organization. Others have been active members in the organization
for years prior to attaining their present senior position. Additionally, in many of the cases
they have been the driving force behind strategic dispositions and theological formulation.
Others, however, are quite new to their organization.
157
See Appendix 1.
63
It is anyhow important to remember that the executive of an organization sees his or
her organization from a certain perspective. Some express awareness about this in the
interview. If one had asked this executive’s predecessors or successor the same questions, one
would probably get different answers. There is definitely not a complete overlap between the
executive and the organization.
My decision to treat the executives as prime interpreters of the documents is largely
due to their contextual competence. It is arguably hard to find anyone with more insight and
access to the many elements of this organization’s strategy at this point in time. The
informants had probably been present in all the important meetings in which all the important
questions were discussed, had heard the different arguments, had knowledge about different
wings and interest groups within the organization, were constantly in the process of
improving the organization, and most important, had been found suited for the position by the
organization itself. To me, that makes the executive a qualified and interesting interpreter of
his or her organization – but not without the reservations made above.
1.5.3 Transcript and translation, coding and re-coding
The files from the digital audio recordings of the interviews were transcribed into documents.
I took the time myself to transcribe the first three interviews, just to get the sense of it. For the
rest, a former student of mine was interested in transcription, and willing to do a couple,158
before a professional bureau was hired for the remainder.159 The finished transcripts were
thereafter sent back to the informants for them to read. Only a couple of informants had
adjustments to make, and only on minor errors.
The transcripts were imported and coded in Dedoose software. This is a relatively new
web-based software for qualitative and mixed-method research, available at
www.dedoose.com. The initial coding followed Alan Bryman’s suggestion of coding as a
process in four stages:160
•
•
•
•
Stage 1: Read text as a whole. Group types and categories. Look for major themes.
Stage 2: Read the text again. Mark the text, label codes, highlight keywords.
Stage 3: Code the text.
Stage 4: Relate general theoretical ideas to the text.
158
I am very grateful for the assistance of Eivind Kausland Lie.
These actually turned out to be of such poor quality that I had to go through the transcriptions in detail
anyhow. (The bureau evidently did not know any theological or church vocabulary – and in some cases even
basic Norwegian.)
160
Alan Bryman, Social research methods (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008), 233, 542f. See also
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7X7VuQxPfpk&list=PL42F2696DD41FD2C6
159
64
The coding of transcripts was conducted in an inductive manner; with only five
predefined code-tags: “pragmatics” with subsets coded as “origins”, “uses”, and “effects”,
and “occurrences of discipleship vocabulary” (Norw. “forekomster disippelspråk”). The rest
of the 400-plus code-tags applied to the approximately 3,000 excerpts arose from the material
itself as I tried to follow the instructions of Bryman.
Half a year later, without having made particular progress, it seemed to me, I realized
that a reworking of codes was necessary. I needed fewer codes – which meant more general
categories. But more importantly, I needed to build code hierarchies. I ended up with four
dominant hierarchies to which all of the other codes were subordinated. “Pragmatics” was the
obvious one – which resulted in chapter 4. “Youth Ministry” emerged as a functional
collective term for many of the terms – this resulted in chapter 5. The “Theology” code
hierarchy later became chapter 6. I kept “Occurrences of discipleship vocabulary” as the
fourth hierarchy. This would prove to be useful for section 4.2, where this process of coding
and recoding is elaborated on further.
Coding originates from grounded theory; a method for analyzing data inductively
from below.161 In this project of more abductive nature, this would still prove to be helpful.
Especially in Eco’s version of undercoded abduction, where one insistently and repeatedly
starts “from below” with the phenomenon itself, coding fits well. Bryman’s fourth point of
attaching theoretical perspective adds the “from above” component of abduction. It was also
in this interplay between codes emerging from ideas in the material and theoretical
perspectives enabling the clustering of these in reordering the codes that this study moved
forward.
The Dedoose software was originally an analytical tool for mixed-method approaches.
The many available functions in Dedoose for just that intrigued me, and I spent quite a lot of
time exploring the potential benefits of the available options. All the descriptors in section
2.1.11 were quantified and attached to the respective interview transcripts. The data set is of
course all too little for such an approach to give substantial meaning, but the experience
provides motivation for later research. The only descriptor that I found really helpful was the
low-, moderate-, and high-frequency categories. At this point the code-by-descriptor function
in Dedoose is frequently in use throughout this study.
Another great function in Dedoose is the code-by-code function, which allows for easy
search-possibility for all text excerpts containing any two codes, as for instance “discipleship
161
Bryman, Social research methods, 233ff, 542ff.
65
vocabulary” and “Christology”. This way Dedoose has proven valuable, breaking up (from
Greek: ana-lysis) a text into small bits before placing them together (from Greek: syn-thesis)
in new ways.
The different analytical moves in this study will be accounted for in the various
chapters. The entire coding process was conducted in Norwegian. I eventually translated the
quotations from the interviews as they were edited into the text of the thesis.
1.5.4 Reflexivity: On the adding of quality
How to enhance quality in research is a much-debated question. I follow Alan Bryman in that
there are no mechanical ways of eliminating “errors” in qualitative research, but instead one
should strive for ways to improve quality. Bryman presents three routes to take for achieving
this, each of which has been developed in congruity with specific research designs. One way,
Bryman says, is to adapt criteria from quantitative research, such as reliability and validity.
This works best together with realist ontology. LeCompte and Goetz hold internal and
external reliability and internal and external validity as specifics of these. Others, uneasy with
the sharp realist approach to the social world, have advocated an alternative to this. For them,
as for Bryman, quality is the central element to evaluate in qualitative research. Guba and
Lincoln proposed trustworthiness and authenticity as key concepts for this. Others again have
developed a third, intermediate position. Hammersley, for one, starts from a midpoint
between the realism of LeCompte and Goetz and the anti-realism of Guba and Lincoln.
Underlying this is his view on results of qualitative research as one of a number of possible
representations of social reality. Validity, some form of external reliability, and also relevance
are for him central features.162
In the following I try to be transparent about my own reasoning and practice. This
being a study of interpretations, I have made Lincoln and Guba’s criteria subcategories of
authenticity and trustworthiness guide this section: For them, trustworthiness consists of
credibility, transferability, dependability, and conformability, and authenticity is comprised
for instance by fairness, ontological authenticity, educative authenticity, catalytic authenticity,
tactical authenticity, etc.
To gain the credibility of respondent validation seemed especially important since the
informants participate under their full names. As soon as the interviews were transcribed I
sent the documents back to the informants for them to edit. This was an opportunity some, not
162
See ibid., 376ff.
66
all, made use of. Later, if in doubt about statements in the interview, I contacted the
informants to clarify possible misunderstandings. I have not yet let the informants read my
analysis, however, mainly due to time constraints. But I have strived for fairness and
openness in the presentation of all organizations and informants. As my aim has been to
understand their understanding better and more in depth, not to uncover sensational secrets, I
have been most interested in portraying them with fairness to the best of my ability. The fact
that the material consists of official documents in addition to interview transcripts has opened
the possibility to triangulate statements, and thereby add credibility. The same has also been
the case as the findings have been partially obtained through quantitative elements.
Qualitative data is strictly contextual; in this case concerning the strategic level in a
Norwegian, Christian, organizational, youth context. Still I would not exclude a possible
transferability of this study. First, because the sample of ten organizations does in fact
represent about one quarter of the entire population (forty Norwegian Christian youth
organizations). This is a large share even for a quantitative study. Second, in the selective
sampling process (see 1.5.1) I strived for a high level of representativeness in the sample. I
have also made the argument in 1.3.1 that a sample of Norwegian Christian youth
organizations to some extent also reflect Christian youth organizations internationally.163
Third, the question of transferability is de facto for the reader to decide. Lincoln and Guba
connect this to the level of thickness in description. They say a thick description becomes for
the reader a database for making judgments about the possible transferability of findings to
other milieus. Fourth, some claim that the findings of qualitative research are to generalize to
theory rather than to populations. Cogency of theoretical reasoning is more important than
statistical criteria. The quality of theoretical inferences from qualitative data is therefore
crucial to the assessment of generalization.164
163
Transferability touches upon the question of generalization, which I believe is difficult to do based on
qualitative research designs. We must admit that the scope of qualitative investigation is restricted in several
ways at this point. Constructivists argue that all phenomena are time and context specific. Michael S. LewisBeck, Alan Bryman, and Tim Futing Liao, The Sage encyclopedia of social science research methods (Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage, 2004), 421. The critical rationalists argue against the possibility of inductive proof of general
sentences, and leave deductive falsification as the only way forward. Yvonna S. Lincoln and Egon G. Guba,
Naturalistic inquiry (Beverly Hills, CA: Sage, 1985), 110. Many qualitative researchers ignore the problem as
they see the role of qualitative research to interpret the meanings of agents within particular social contexts,
rather than measuring, explaining or predicting. Karl R. Popper, The logic of scientific discovery (London:
Routledge, 1992). Others again have argued the case for moderatum generalizations in which aspects of a
situation S can be seen as instances of a broader recognizable set of features based on levels of cultural
consistency between the situations. M. Williams in Lewis-Beck, Bryman, and Liao, The Sage encyclopedia of
social science research methods, 420.
164
Lewis-Beck, Bryman, and Liao, The Sage encyclopedia of social science research methods, 420. (Quoting
Mitchell 1983: 207).
67
Maybe this is also why, instead of talking about reliability in qualitative research,
Lincoln and Guba suggest criteria of dependability. They encourage researchers to adopt an
auditing approach, which includes ensuring that complete records are kept of all phases of the
research process. Along the way I have made all my audio-files, transcripts, coding and
earlier drafts accessible to my supervisors. They have of course not controlled all the material
and my work with it, but they have had the opportunity, and I have found an open practice
concerning this supporting. I have asked them to do sample controls. I also have presented
material and my own preliminary analysis at several seminars in the PhD program, at research
schools, and on conferences.
Through supervision I have developed reflexivity about my own role in this project.
Two topics have been particularly recurrent: my role in the interview situation and my role in
relation to the object of study. Concerning the former, the main thing has centered on not
asking leading questions, particularly in interviews with less experienced informants. Through
a process of conversations prior to the interviews, and through a review of the final transcripts,
I am pretty confident that I have not acted deceitfully towards informants. About the latter,
my role and stance in relation to the object of study, has been an ongoing personal process
throughout the study. Having published normative theology about discipleship earlier, it was
necessary to reflect on this issue, especially since this is predominantly a descriptive project.
My intention and honest interest has been to learn and listen to what others have said about
the use of discipleship vocabulary. In a process of reflexivity alone and with auditors I believe
this research has come sufficiently to conform according to Lincoln and Guba’s criteria of
conformability. It has been tremendously important and stimulating to attend various research
seminars. Early drafts of almost every chapter of this thesis have been tried out in papers and
workshops with responses from peers or senior colleagues. This has added authenticity.
68
2
DISCIPLESHIP VOCABULARY IN OFFICIAL DOCUMENTS
As a backdrop for later analysis, the following chapter provides descriptions of the selected
organizations (2.1) and a presentation of the immediate use of discipleship vocabulary in their
official documents (2.2). The description and the presentation both rely on the official
documents as of 2011-12, the time of the data collection. The actual selection of documents
from each organization will be introduced and accounted for. Each organization has worked
out its own blend of documents. I have particularly been interested in documents from the
four categories:165
•
•
•
•
2.1
Self-presentations (on web page or in print)
Constitutions, by-laws, statutes etc.
Strategy plans, plans of action, curriculums etc.
Annual Reports
Presentation of organizations in the sample
Based on the official documents from each organization, the sample organizations are
presented in alphabetical order below. Outlines of these analytical descriptions were written
prior to the interviews. This gave the informants the opportunity to clarify misunderstandings
and add information in the course of the interviews.
2.1.1 Changemaker
Changemaker is an activist organization founded in 1992 with the intention to mobilize young
people aged from thirteen to thirty in the fight against the underlying reasons for poverty and
injustice in the world.166 Its slogan “Klart vi kan forandre verden”, which in English translates
to: “Of course we can change the world!” is well known within and outside of the church. The
organization is not affiliated with any political party, and welcomes any new member,
regardless of faith and worldview.
165
In addition to these, I have kept in view a body of additional documents, which I have called secondary
documents. These are (often outdated) reports and strategy plans, scholarly accounts, special issues of
bulletins/magazines, documents from (international) parent organizations. When I use secondary sources, this
will be indicated in footnotes.
166
Selected official documents: Changemaker, “Changemaker Årsmelding 2011-2012” (2011); Changemaker,
“Vedtekter for Changemaker” (2011); Changemaker, “Politisk plattform 2011-2012” (2011); Changemaker,
“Handlingsplan 2011-2012” (2011); Changemaker, “Changemakers strategi 2010-2014 / Utvidet
strategidokument for Changemaker 2010-2014” (2011); Changemaker, “Self presentation”
www.changemaker.no.
69
The organization consists of 1,290 members (2011) in twenty local groups throughout
twelve of Norway’s nineteen counties. An elected central board is the highest agency of the
organization, and operations are run through a staff of five full-time employees and six
political committees, each responsible for a target area: peace building, debt and flight of
capital, global health, international trade, climate and environment, and international relations.
Changemaker’s working strategy is to influence decision-makers. This is done in a
number of creative ways: through campaigning and an extensive flow of information in social
media, camps, debates, concerts, lobbying, petitions, and local newspapers, and through its
magazine and giving informed lectures. In their practice, members seek to live up to their own
saying that activism should be fun.
Changemaker does not promote itself as a Christian organization or an organization
for Christians. However, as the youth organization of Norwegian Church Aid167, a certain
Christian belonging shines through in a number of ways. Basic motivation is found in
Christian values along with the human rights. Church networks are used extensively for
recruitment of members and for building international alliances. The influence of
Changemaker on Norwegian youth is much greater than the number of members would
indicate. Most Norwegian youth are familiar with Changemaker through preparation for
confirmation, either through teaching or through the annual fund-raising campaign.
The annual budget is about NOK 3,000,000. At the time of the interview Markus
Nilsen Rotevatn was the elected executive.
2.1.2 KRIK (Eng.: CHRISC: Christian Sports Contact)
KRIK is a membership organization and a network movement for athletes, coaches, leaders,
and sports enthusiasts. Since the beginning KRIK has formulated its objects as to “keep,
inspire, and win athletes for Christian life in sporting clubs and church congregations”.168
KROK (an organization for Christian orienteering athletes and the predecessor of
KRIK) was established on the initiative of Kjell Markset in 1976. In 1981 KRIK was
officially established, and the mission was broadened to include all types of athletes. The
primary focus was still on active athletes and their support apparatus. Today the organization
167
Norwegian Church Aid is one of the more dominant relief organizations in Norway. It is an ecumenical and
diaconal organization working on behalf of a number of Churches and congregations. See
www.kirkensnodhjelp.no/en/ for more.
168
Selected official documents: KRIK, “Self presentation,” http://krik.no/nasjonalt/side.php?id=43; KRIK,
“Lover for Kristen idrettskontakt” (2009); KRIK, “Årsmelding 2009-2010” (2010); KRIK, “Strategisk plan for
KRIK 2010-2014” (2010); Kulturinstruks for KRIKs arrangementer; KRIK, “Spilleregler for KRIK-ledere”
(2004).
70
welcomes any person with any type of sport-related commitment between the ages of fifteen
and twenty-six. The focus on top athletes is still there, but mainly through the sub-group
“KRIK Active”.
Since 1993 KRIK has collaborated with the Strømme Foundation in using sports as a
means for youth work in the Third World.169 The KRIK idea has also gained momentum there,
and spread rapidly to a number of countries in Africa. Independent national offices of
CHRISC have been established in Tanzania and Uganda (2003), in Kenya (2004), and in
Rwanda (2010); 20,000 young people engage in regular activities in these countries. In 2005 a
branch of KRIK was established in Sweden. Other countries with KRIK-related activities
today include: Bolivia, Brazil, Cameroon, India, Madagascar, Nepal, Peru, Poland, and
Thailand.
KRIK is an ecumenical organization that collaborates with a number of churches,
schools and institutions. Its four governing values are: “joy, clarity, freedom, and pride”.
Unlike most Christian youth organizations, KRIK has in most respects experienced a steady
annual growth for over thirty years. In 2010 KRIK had a total of 14,200 members, which
makes it one of the greater youth organizations in Norway. They organize various annual
camps and festivals, with “Arena” (established 1986), “Action” (established 1988), “Explore”
(established 2004), and “konfAction” (established 2008) being the four largest. Close to 250
local groups make up the backbone of the organization. KRIK classes are offered in several
Bible schools, in addition to various courses at its own facility (KRIK Høyfjellsenter in
Hemsedal). Different sub-groups have been formed, such as “KRIK Ski”, “KRIK Surf”,
“KRIK Wildlife”, “KRIK Air”, “Para KRIK”, “KRIK River-kayak”, “KRIK Media”, and
“KRIK Active”. The organization is known for an active policy on recruiting and training
young leaders as volunteers and staff.
The General Assembly, which also elects the National Board, is held every other year
and is open to all members. The annual budget is about NOK 22,300,000. At the headquarters
in Oslo, ten people are working full time while five are part-time staff. Sixteen more
employees are spread out through the 19 districts. Since 1996 the day-to-day responsibilities
have been split between a General Manager and a Secretary General and Minister. The
founder, Kjell Markset, is still in the position of Minister and Secretary General. Vegard
Holm, my informant, was the General Manager from 2004 to 2012.
169
KRIK established a separate International Department in June 2009. From 2010 and on, Strømme Foundation
was no longer a partner in CHRISC.
71
2.1.3 Korsvei (Eng.: The Crossroad movement)
The first Korsvei summer festival was held in 1985. It was announced with the following
statement: “Jesus continues to say: Follow me! – What does discipleship imply in our time,
when the cry from the poor South resounds in a spiritual vacuum in North?” This question has
ever since remained central.170
Although Korsvei was started by members of the Church of Norway today it is an
ecumenical movement, drawing on creative and theological resources from a range of
theological streams in Norwegian and Nordic church life: retreat movement, liberation
theology, Christian lay movements, social ethics movements, and charismatic awakening. Its
purpose is to “inspire and challenge people to seek intimate/trustful relationship with Jesus
Christ, and to unite with him in the fight for life in our world”. The main goals of Korsvei are
to (a) work theologically to interpret the Christian faith in our time, (b) create meeting-places
to inspire disciple-life, and (c) prepare fertile soil for creative and prophetic actions that
demonstrate what Jesus’ radical calling implies today.
The biannual festival still remains the main activity in the movement, gathering
around 3,000 people. Besides that, several small and large seminars, campaigns and meetings
are held every year. Local fellowships are found in approximately ten regions throughout the
country, and the Crossroad movement has given rise to similar movements in other countries,
such as Denmark and Sweden. The magazine “Kors:vei” is issued four times a year. The
movement offers no formal membership.
The road metaphor is an important characteristic, and suggests a movement wanting to
be in motion. This corresponds to the fact that the movement is arranged around an
unanswered question: “It [the question of what it implies to be a disciple of Jesus in our time]
has challenged and inspired us, and many times felt too big. Many people have called for
clear words and tangible expressions. But none of us have the answers on how life should be
lived. The answers we have to find ourselves. At the same time, many have found fellowship
in trying to find direction.”.
The four “road-signs” of the movement imply four core values: (a) seeking Jesus
Christ, (b) building community, (c) living more simply, and (d) fighting for justice. The road170
Selected official documents: Korsvei, “Vedtekter for Stiftelsen Korsvei” (2007); Korsvei, “Self presentation”
(The web-based self-presentation also includes the text of the important book Korsvei, Veivisere. En vandring
med Korsveis fire veivisere (Oslo: Genesis, 2003); Korsvei, “Veigrep. En livsregel for Kristusdisipler. Inspirert
av Korsveis fire veivisere” (2011, 2nd ed.); Korsvei, “Årsmelding for 2011. Stiftelsen korsvei.” (2011); Knut
Grønvik, “Korsveis linje?” in Gudsrikets gåte: Stemmer fra korsveibevegelsen: En artikkelsamling utgitt til
Korsvei 2005, ed. Ellen Merete Wilkens Finnseth et al. (Oslo: Stiftelsen korsvei, 2005).; and Korsvei, “Disipler
på veien. Referater og notater fra Ten-korsvei” (2009–2012).
72
signs are the most well-known expression of Korsvei. A complementary concept of “roadgrips”, a suggestive spiritual rule, has been developed in the last decade. The road grips draw
on several monastic traditions, indicating a rhythm of life, directions in life and traveling
companionship.
In 1993 the Korsvei Foundation was established to serve the Crossroad movement
with juridical and economic grounding. The board of the foundation acts as the leadership of
the movement. The budget is modest and largely based on profits from the summer festivals.
The annual turnover is NOK 3,000,000 a year on average. A small staff is built up of a
number of part-time and voluntary positions. In 2011 the work force consisted of: a minister
(50–60%), an editor for the magazine (12.5%), a web-editor (voluntary), a festivalcoordinator (40–50%), two festival assistants (15%), and a business manager (5%). My
informant is Knut Grønvik, one of the founders, and in 2011 still holding the position of
Minister.171
2.1.4 Laget (Eng.: Norwegian Universities and Schools Christian Fellowship)
Laget organizes fellowships for Christian pupils and students. Its official vision is “to make
Jesus known in schools and colleges in such a way that he will be believed, loved and
followed”.172 Today, Laget consists of 174 local groups – out of which 155 are high school
and junior high school groups, while 19 are based in colleges and universities. Working
strategies focus in on four areas: to build ecumenical school and collegegroups, to build
young leaders, to build a network of prayer and resources around the groups of students, and
to let students experience the worldwide church and a call to service.
Laget has a proud history. The first student group was started in 1909 in the small
town of Volda. In 1924 the different groups were organized and Norges Kristelige Studentlag
was formally established. The role Laget played in recruiting and organizing the post-war
generations was significant. During the 1960s, 70s and 80s Laget was one of the driving
forces in Norwegian youth ministry. For the last three decades, however, it has experienced a
drastic decline in membership and weakened finances. From the millennium onwards,
171
It is possible to question whether or not Korsvei actually qualifies as a youth organization. In 1.3.2 I have
discussed this, and argued this with a double justifiecation: a) youth ministry is structurally included as part of
what Korsvei is and does, and b) Korsvei has a self-understanding of representing a kind of spirituality that also
is relevant for youth ministry.
172
Selected official documents: Laget, “Self presentation,” www.nkss.no; Laget, “Utkast til handlingsplan
01.01.12-30.06.2013” (2012); Laget, “Lover for Norges kristelige student- og skoleungdomslag” (2006); Laget,
“Fra Organisasjon til bevegelse. Lagets strategiplan 2012-2016” (2012); Laget, “Lagets Toårsmelding 20102011” (2012).
73
measures have been taken to obstruct further decline. Laget is today an organization in a state
of reorientation and transition. Strategies have been reformulated, most evidently in the
document: “From organization to movement”. The exclusive Lutheran profile of the past has
yielded to an ecumenical openness on most levels in the organization. Membership numbers
are today stable at just over 3,000, and there are signs that confidence is coming back.
Internationally Laget is part of the International Fellowship of Evangelical Students
(IFES), a worldwide association of 136 evangelical Christian student movements. In Norway
activities and groups are organized in six regions. There are thirty-five employees – out of
whom half work at the headquarters in Oslo. The annual budget is approximately NOK
20,000,000. The National Board is elected by the biannual General Assembly. Tor Erling
Fagermoen, General Secretary since January 2011, is my informant.
2.1.5 Misjonsforbundet Ung
In 2012 Misjonsforbundet Ung celebrated its centenary, making it one of the oldest youth
organizations in Norway.173 As the name implies, Misjonsforbundet Ung is the youth
organization of Misjonsforbundet, a union of free churches dating back to the mid nineteenth
century.174 On June 22, 1912, the different local youth groups of Misjonsforbundet organized
and formed the independent youth organization NFU (Norwegian Free Mission’s Youth). The
name has changed several times since then. The vision, however, remains the same: “Children
and youth for Christ and the congregation”.
Misjonsforbundet is one of many small Free Church denominations in Norway. It is
unique in that it has a notable theological and cultural diversity among its congregations, from
charismatic to relatively high-church. From the start and until today, the motto of
Misjonsforbundet has been “Unity among God’s children and salvation of sinners”, marking
out the two core subjects: unity and mission.
173
Selected official documents: Misjonsforbundet Ung, “Self presentation” http://misjonsforbundet.no/ung;
Misjonsforbundet Ung, Årboka 2011: Landsmøte, 19.- 20. november i Skien misjonskirke (Oslo:
MisjonsforbundetUNG, 2012); Misjonsforbundet Ung, Levende tro: En pedagogisk trosopplæringsplan for
aldersgruppen 0 - 20 år til bruk i hjem og menighet (Oslo: MisjonsforbundetUNG, 2010); Misjonsforbundet
Ung and Håvard Haugland, “Disippelpuls” (Oslo, 2009); Hildegunn Marie Tønnessen Schuff, Misjonsforbundet
Ungs historie 1912-2012 (Oslo: Misjonsforbundet Ung, 2011).
174
Misjonsforbundet is officially organized as an independent denomination. For a presentation, see
www.misjonsforbundet.no. Internationally, Misjonsforbundet is a member of the International Fellowship of
Free Evangelical Churches. For more, see www.iffec.org.
74
Misjonsforbundet Ung was included in the sample for a number of reasons. I wanted a
representative of the Free Church youth organizations. It is also well qualified as a nonLutheran organization that has formulated much of its strategy in discipleship vocabulary.175
A lot of time and care has been expended in the making of “Levende Tro” (Eng.:
“Living Faith”) – resources for an extensive program of Christian education. The threefold
aim of Levende Tro is to (a) make homes the initial place for the modeling and practicing of
faith, (b) make congregations that equip homes and families to live out everyday faith, and (c)
implement Christian education programs for the young, from birth to age twenty, in all
congregations.
Misjonsforbundet Ung has 5,365 members aged twenty-six and under, organized in
137 local groups. The different groups all belong to local congregations. The operations are
led by a central administration, and a staff of eight in full- and part-time positions. The annual
budget exceeds NOK 5,300,000. My informant, Anne Margrethe Ree Sunde, was the Head
Manager of the organization.
2.1.6 Norges KFUK-KFUM (Trans.: YWCA / YMCA of Norway)
Norges KFUK-KFUM is among the more influential Christian youth organizations in Norway.
Its history stretches back to 1868 when the first local unit was founded (men only) and to
1887 when the first women’s group was established. The groups were united in 1880 under
the name “De Norske Ynglingeforeningers Fællesforbund”. The name was later changed to
“Norges Kristelige Ungdomsforbund” (1898) and again in 1987 to “Norges KFUKKFUM”.176
The 20,000 members (predominantly children, youth, and young adults177) take part in
a total of 500 different clubs, choirs, sports clubs, and activity groups. Leadership courses
play an important role in the organizational strategies: MILK courses (Eng.: Mini leader
courses), LIV courses (Eng.: Leaders in growth), BOLK courses (Eng.: Bible and leadership
training), Ten-sing seminars and Trospilotene range from initial training to academic level
leadership training.
Norges KFUK-KFUM aims “to help people to a living faith in Jesus Christ (…), to
develop and take responsibility for the totality of human beings (spirit, soul and body), and to
175
In the official documents discipleship vocabulary represents a frequency of 0.382 %, which is high.
Selected official documents: Norges KFUK-KFUM, “Lover for Norges KFUK-KFUM” (2011); Norges
KFUK-KFUM, “Måldokument for Norges KFUK-KFUM 2011-2013” (2011); Norges KFUK-KFUM, “KFUKKFUM toårsmelding 2009-2010” (2011); Norges KFUK-KFUM, “Self presentation,” http://www.kfukkfum.no/side80; Norges KFUK-KFUM, “Self presentation,” http://www.YMCA.int ;
177
Approximately one-quarter of the groups are for adults (113 in 2011).
176
75
challenge to active ministry in church and society, nationally and internationally”. The vision
statement says: “We get incredible things to happen by being an open/openly Christian
organization working to develop Christian, brave and creative people.” The goals for the
period 2011–2013 were (a) to stand out as a global youth movement, (b) to take care of and
reach more children and youth and to recruit leaders, and (c) to have an effective and futureoriented resource management.
This strategy must be seen against a backdrop of the organizational development over
the last few decades. Norges KFUK-KFUM had an immense influence and impact on the
post-war generations. The Ten-sing movement in the 1970s and 80s was especially
revolutionary. The organization has for the last three decades experienced significant
stagnation. The bi-annual report for 2009-2010 however indicates that things are about to
change. The report celebrates 100 new groups, and a rise in membership numbers as well as
revenue.
Norges KFUK-KFUM is part of several networks nationally and internationally. There
are three YMCA-YMCA organizations just in Norway: Norges KFUK-KFUM, Norges
KFUK-KFUM speidere178, and KFUK-KFUM Global179. The Norwegian “Y-movement”
organizes a total of 30,000 members. The two former own in collaboration the latter. But
although the three organizations share ideology, they are constitutionally, functionally, and
economically independent.
Norges KFUK-KFUM is affiliated internationally with both the YMCA (Young
Men’s Christian Association) and YWCA (Young Women’s Christian Association).180 These
organizations are present in over 120 countries with a total of 50 million members. The
triangle logo is recognized everywhere, symbolizing spirit, soul and body: the entire human
being. Internationally, both the YWCA and YMCA are ecumenical movements, drawing
members from most denominations. Norges KFUK-KFUM, however, is traditionally
reckoned as part of the Church of Norway, and often referred to as “the youth ministry of the
Church”. Norges KFUK-KFUM collaborates with a number of denominations locally, and
practices open membership.
178
Norges KFUK-KFUM Speidere is a scout organization. See: Norges KFUK-KFUM Speidere, “Self
presentation,” http://www.kmspeider.no/
179
English name: YMCA-YWCA Global. KFUK-KFUM Global is an independent organization, focusing on aid
and solidarity, however acting on behalf of and in collaboration with both. ibid.
180
In Norway girls and boys are organized together, hence the name KFUK-KFUM. The last K in KFUK stands
for women (Norwegian: kvinner), while the M in KFUM stands for men.
76
Norges KFUK-KFUM is run by a developed democracy. The national meeting, the
highest level in the organization, is held every other year and consists of two delegates from
every local unit. The national board is elected here. Norges KFUK-KFUM is organized in
seventeen districts. There is a total of 178 employees in the regions and in a central
administration. The accountants for 2010 showed an annual turnover of approx. NOK
19,000,000. Adelheid Firing Hvambsal was into her sixth year as General Secretary at the
time of the interview.
2.1.7 Norges unge katolikker (Eng.: Young Norwegian Catholics)
Norges unge katolikker is a union of groups in Roman Catholic congregations. The
organization welcomes any young Catholic under the age of thirty-five. Persons over thirtyfive years of age can be supporting members.181
The organization is a union on three levels: local, regional and central. The delegates
from the local organizations account for the majority of the annual national meeting, which is
the highest governing body in the organization. The local groups are organized in seven
geographic regions. The central level consists of a national board with a working committee
elected from the national meeting, a small administration, and a number of editorial and
specialized committees of volunteers.
Norges unge katolikker was established in 1947 under the name of “Norsk Katolsk
Ungdomsforbund”. Today the Catholic Church in Norway is experiencing a notable growth
due to immigration and conversion. For the most of its history, however, Norges unge
katolikker has had the role of gathering and empowering a very small body of Catholic youth.
Much of Norges unge katolikker’s effort has been put into distributing information about the
Church, instructing Catholic faith and to offer a larger community. Magazines have been
instrumental for this since the start, along with camps, seminars, and pilgrimages. In 1968 the
Mariaholm school center was established and has since then played an important role as the
hub for activities. Today the organization counts just short of 3,000 members.
Norges unge katolikker is one of three organizations within my sample with a distinct
confessional affiliation. The organization is consistently democratically organized throughout
181
Selected official documents: Norges unge katolikker, “NUKs Formålsparagraf” (2011); Norges unge
katolikker, “Årsrapport 2010-2011” (2011).; Norges unge katolikker, “Håndbok” (2012); Norges unge katolikker,
“Vedtekter for Norges unge katolikker” (2012); Norges unge katolikker, “Self presentation,” http://nuk.no/
77
all levels of the organization. However, a rather unique feature is its explicit theological
loyalty towards the Roman Catholic Church.182
Faith, fellowship and action are the three key terms that form the basis for all activities
within the organization. Faith is laid out as building Catholic identity in young people and to
make visible a living and young church. Fellowship describes the effort to create meetingplaces for young Catholics across cultures in Catholic surroundings and to celebrate the
fellowship of Christ in the mass. Action is elaborated as growth in the faith, commitment to
Church and society, to facilitate congregations in children’s and youth ministry, and to
recognize Christ in fellow humans and act accordingly.
The local groups are the backbone of Norges unge katolikker and are organized in
seven districts. Every local group can dispatch from one to three delegates to the National
Council, where a leader and the executive committee of the National board are elected. The
executive committee is responsible for all organizational operations between the National
Councils, while a number of committees focus on different sectors of the organizational life
(children, charity, camps, leadership-training, finance, and an electoral committee).
Norges unge katolikker is affiliated with a number of other organizations.183 The
annual budget is about NOK 3,500,000. Kristine Gran Martinsen had, at the time of the
interview, held the position as elected Leader for less than a year.184
2.1.8 Substans (Trans.: “Substance”)
Substans presents itself as “a loosely knit practice network working for the integration of
followship185 of Jesus into all areas of life”.186 Its aim is in “very tangible ways to explore and
experiment with how God’s will could be done on earth as in heaven”. It would be fair to say
182
The statutes state that: “Norges unge katolikker as [an] organization bases its work on faithfulness to the
Church and work in deliberation with the bishops in the dioceses, the priests in the different parishes. […] As a
catholic organization Norges unge katolikker pertain to the bishops’ pastoral responsibility and follow their
decisions in Nordic Catholic Bishops. Council in questions regarding Catholic faith and morals.”
183
Caritas Norge, the Catholic Church’s own relief agency in Norway and internationally; Bonifatuswerk, a
German Catholic lay-organization supporting Catholics in the diaspora; Nordic Catholic Youth Council, together
with SUK (Sweden’s Young Catholics); DUK (Denmark’s Young Catholics) and representatives from other
countries; the Norwegian Children and Youth Council (LNU); the Norwegian Coalition for Debt Cancellation
(SLUG); Christian Study Union (Norw. K-Stud); Human Worth (Norw. Menneskeverd) – an organization
furthering human decency from conception to natural death; and the Association of Non-Governmental
Organizations in Norway (Norw. Frivillighet Norge) an umbrella for the voluntary sector in Norway.
184
To be eligible for the leadership position one has to be 26 years or younger. Norges unge katolikker has no
employed leader.
185
For explanation of “followship”, see footnote 5 and 236.
186
Selected official documents: Substans, “Self presentation,” http://substansielt.no; Substans, “Newsletters
2012,” http://substansielt.no/info/historikk/. In preparation for the interview I also read Scandrette and Kilde
Aarebrot, Jesusveien.
78
that Substans probably is the clearest expression of the New Monastic movement187 in
Norway.
The organization has a short history. When Stian Kilde Aarebrot and his family spent
a year in San Francisco (USA) in 2008, they were introduced to the Re-Imagine fellowship.
This is a center working for the integration of spirituality, community, art, and social
activism.188 They brought its ideas and working methods back to their home congregation,
Sub-church, hence the name. Two years later, Substans became an independent, nationwide
movement. Substans is still in an entrepreneurial phase, and is not included in the sample
because of its size, impact or history. The organization is run from a borrowed office and is
just about sorting out the formalities. It is however visible in the church landscape as it
represents something fresh and, to Norway, different.
The aim of the organization is to rehabilitate ascetic and activist practices – in reaction
to what they see as an anxiety over legalism in Protestantism. The concept of “Jesusdojos” is
a striking feature. “Dojo” is a Japanese term for a gym in martial arts, a place for training and
practice – or directly translated: the place you learn the way. A Jesus-dojo is the place you
learn the way of Jesus. People are gathered in provisional fellowships for intense trainingperiods of four to six weeks. The Jesusdojo allows young people to center on ascetic or
activist practices with a high level of commitment, such as simplicity, quietness, fasting,
fighting modern-day slavery etc. Ascetism and activism are related, Substans claims, as
inhalation and exhalation are related in breathing. The mantra of Substans is spelled out:
Filled by love
Obey our creator
Serve the created
Build fellowship
Filled by love
Live simple
Breathe prayer
Be creative
Filled by love
In addition to a wide variety of Jesusdojos, Substans also hosts other activities: writing
courses, prayer on the hour, retreats etc. One goal is to establish more permanent monastic
187
For a better understanding of the New monasticism movement, see for instance Hartgrove-Wilson, New
monasticism; Graham Cray, Ian J. Mobsby, and Aaron Kennedy, New monasticism as fresh expression of
Church (Norwich: Canterbury Press, 2010).
188
https://www.facebook.com/Re-ImagineSF
79
communities. Another is to spread their activities to other parts of Norway. Substans is not a
membership organization. Stian Kilde Aarebrot, my informant, is the only employee (parttime). The total budget for 2012 was a modest NOK 300,000.
2.1.9 Trosopplæringen (Trans.: Christian Education in the Church of Norway)
Trosopplæringen coordinates Christian education in all congregations within the Church of
Norway. By most quantifiable measures, the activities of Trosopplæringen exceed those of the
other organizations in the sample: every little town or village in Norway belongs to a Church
of Norway parish. The majority of Norway’s population belongs to the Church.189 The
ambition of Trosopplæringen is to provide Christian education for all baptized children and
youth (aged 0–18), not only for churchgoers.190
In 2003 the Norwegian Parliament adopted the reform of Christian education. Since
the eighteenth century public schools have had the responsibility for providing children with
Christian education. This arrangement came to an end in the second half of the twentieth
century. Now, all religious communities – including the Church of Norway – are equally
responsible for providing their members with basic religious education.
From 2004 to 2008 Trosopplæringen was in an explorative and developmental phase.
Congregations were encouraged to come up with new ways of doing Christian education.
Pilot congregations received financial support, and experiences were gathered in an extensive
resource database. A program for mentoring was established. Academic institutions were
involved both as constructive contributors in development and in ongoing evaluation of the
reform. By 2013 all of the Church of Norway’s 1,280 congregations could offer their young
members systematic Christian education.
Trosopplæringen has impacted the scene of youth ministry in Norway in fundamental
ways. It is by far the largest employer of youth ministers and Christian educators. It has
professionalized a field that earlier relied on voluntaries. Ideologically, it has a base in
consistent folk-church theology which means that all activities relate to the baptized majority,
not a core of believers. A reworking of child theology implies a raised status of and renewed
189
As of December 2012, 76.2% of Norway’s population holds membership in the Church of Norway and 63.7%
of all Norwegian infants were baptized in this church. Ånund Brottveit and Sunniva Elisabeth Holberg,
Tilstandsrapport for Den norske kirke 2014, vol. 2/2014, Notat (Kirkeforskning, Stiftelsen: trykt utg.) (Oslo:
KIFO Stiftelsen Kirkeforskning, 2014), 13, 44.
190
Selected official documents: Trosopplæringen, Gud gir - vi deler: plan for trosopplæring i Den norske kirke
(Oslo: Den norske kirke, Kirkerådet, 2010); Trosopplæringen, “Bakgrunn,”
http://www.kirken.no/?event=doLink&famID=9345; Trosopplæringen, “Self presentation: ‘Religious education
in a new era’,” http://www.kirken.no/?event=doLink&famID=11298. Trosopplæringen, “Reform av
Trosopplæringen i Den norske kirke. Statusrapport august 2011” (2011).
80
attention on the youngest in the congregation. The heart of the curriculum is found in (a)
Christian practice, (b) interpreting life and mastering the art of living, and (c) faith and
tradition in and of the Church. Pedagogically, Trosopplæringen favors participation and
learning over teaching and transmission.
Trosopplæringen has an annual budget of NOK 230,000,000. Its operations on a daily
basis are run and led by the Secretariat for Christian Education at the Church Council. Paul
Erik Wirgenes, my informant, was Project Manager on Church Education from 2003 to 2009,
and became Director in the Department on Church Development after that.
2.1.10 Ungdom i Oppdrag (Eng.: Youth with a Mission)
Ungdom i Oppdrag is the national branch of Youth with a Mission International (YWAM),
one of the bigger missionary movements in the world.191 The organization facilitates people
and activities around the three core assignments of evangelizing the unreached, training youth
for mission and different kinds of mercy ministries. Its purpose, both nationally and
internationally, is often stated as “to know God and to make Him known”. YWAM has just
over 1,000 operating locations in 180 nations. Eight of these locations are found in Norway.192
The story of YWAM started in 1960, with the idea, radical at the time, that young
people could be full partakers in the Great Commission (Matthew 28:19).193 YWAM was
established in Norway in 1972 as a Lutheran organization, primarily working with and within
the Church of Norway, before becoming fully ecumenical in 1985. Each of Ungdom i
Oppdrag’s eight bases runs a DTS (Disciple Training School) together with other activities.
Around 300 people have full-time commitment to the organization in Norway – and private
191
Selected official documents: Ungdom i Oppdrag, “Om Ungdom i Oppdrag, www.ywam.no,”
http://www.ywam.no/om-uio/, http://www.ungdomioppdrag.no; Ungdom i Oppdrag, “DTS-magasinet 2012.
Ungdom i Oppdrags disippeltreningsskoler» (2012); Ungdom i Oppdrag, “Self presentation,”
http://www.worldYWCA.org.
192
The loosely-knit nature of YWAM cannot be exaggerated. It operates without membership records, has no
official statutes, does not publish annual reports, and annual accounts have been hard to obtain. On an enquiry
for any kind of formal organizational statistics, National Leader Andreas Nordli replied: “Sorry, we do not have
annual reports… Remember we are a movement.” He then gave me the figures presented below. (e-mail dated
January 11, 2013)
193
The founder, Loren Cunningham, in his early twenties had a vision, often referred to as a mental movie, of
waves of youth hitting the shores of every continent with the Gospel. Young people were soon brought along on
short-term mission trips and offered training. Their first school of evangelism was held in Lausanne, Switzerland,
in the winter/spring of 1970. A second school was soon established in New Jersey, US. The Discipleship
Training Schools (DTSs) still organize the training as they did then; 12 weeks of teaching and tuition followed
by 10–12 weeks of in-the-field outreach. University of the Nations (Kauii, Hawaii) oversees all of the training
throughout the organization. Relief and developmental work was gradually given focus in the 1980s, the “Mercy
ministries” appeared together with work with refugees in Asia. Soon, children and family ministries were also
pioneered. In the 1990s YWAM’s commitment to reach Muslims and other unreached people took new and
brave steps forward, resulting in the “4K” global plan in 2003.
81
responsibility to fund their own financial support. A completed DTS is mandatory for being
an associate. As many as 300 Norwegians attend a DTS abroad every year, and the same
number of people travel to Norway for a DTS. Just short of a 1,000 people take part in shortterm missions annually through the program “Mission-adventures”. Ungdom i Oppdrag does
not have congregations of its own, but collaborates with any local evangelical church. The
theology of the movement is in many ways classic evangelical/charismatic, placing emphasis
on the authority of the Bible, Jesus’ atonement on the cross, and Christian living and
responsibility.194
YWAM’s Global Leadership Forum (GLF) is comprised of regional and global
ministry representatives. However, the decentralized structure is even more evident. Every
country, and even every location, is encouraged to new vision and the exploration of new
ways to change lives through training, to convey the message of the gospel, and to care for
those in need. There is, for instance, no international administrative headquarters in the
movement. Global leaders are scattered around the world, but there are national and regional
directors for local areas.
In Norway, YWAM is formally registered as a foundation led by a board. A national
administration is located at Grimerud in Hedmark. The national leader, Andreas Nordli, is my
informant.
194
The Foundational Values of Youth with a Mission are said to be the expression of basic beliefs coupled with
specific directives given by God. The combination of beliefs and values make up the DNA of Ungdom i
Oppdrag. The values are: (1) Know God, (2) Make God known, (3) Hear God's voice, (4) Practice worship and
intercessory prayer, (6) Be visionary, (7) Champion young people, (7) Be broad-structured and decentralized, (8)
Be international and interdenominational, (9) Have a biblical worldview, (10) Function in teams, (11) Exhibit
servant leadership, (12) Do first, then teach, (13) Be relational-oriented, (14) Value the individual, (15) Value
families, (16) Practice dependence on God for finance, (17) Practice hospitality, and (18) Communicate with
integrity. See: Ungdom i Oppdrag, “Self presentation”.
The global leadership team has (co)written and committed to a number of covenants: The Jubilee Covenant
(2010), YWAM’s Commitment to Reach All Peoples (1995), The Red Sea Covenant (1992), The Manila
Covenant (1988), The Christian Magna Carta (1981), The Lausanne Covenant (1974), etc. Ungdom i Oppdrag,
“Covenants YWAM,” http://ywam.org/en/About-YWAM/Who-we-are/The-Jubilee-Covenant,
http://ywam.org/en/About-YWAM/Who-we-are/The-Manila-Covenant, http://ywam.org/en/AboutYWAM/Who-we-are/The-Lausanne-Covenant, http://ywam.org/en/About-YWAM/Who-we-are/The-ChristianMagna-Carta, http://ywam.org/en/About-YWAM/Who-we-are/YWAM's-Commitment-to-Reach-All-Peoples
http://www.ywamfm.com/about-us/our-beliefs/the-red-sea-covenant.aspx.
82
2.1.11 Sample overview
Substans Trosopplæringen Ungdom I Oppdrag 1972 4 1 527 0 3 0.5 270 300 20000 2825 N/A N/A N/A C, Y, YA C, Y, YA, A C, Y, YA YA 20 mill 5.3 mill 19 mill 3.5 mill 0.4 mill 230 mill N/A Steady growth Turn-­‐
around Slight Growth Turn-­‐
around Steady Entrepren Implemen
growth eurial tation Adjusting N/A 19 6 N/A 17 N/A 10 235 174 137 Y Y Y Y Y 12 3 3 150 Ecumenical Y Y Y Y Confessional N N P Y Y Parachurch Y Y Y Y N 1924 1912 1880 31 33 8 178 23 24.5 5 135 N/A 14200 3262 5365 Y, YA YA, A Y, YA Y, YA 3 mill 5.1 mill 22.3 mill Adjusting Steady growth 20 Local groups Int. network Employees Work-­‐year Members Target groups Budget Org. phase Regions Countries C, Y Y, YA, A, C 8 500 N/A 1280 N/A Y Y Y N/A Y 28 120 All N/A N/A 180 Y Y N Y N Y Y Y N Y N N N Y N Y Andreas Nordli 11 Paul Erik Wirgenes N/A Stian Kilde Aarebrot 7 Kristine Gran Martinsen 1450 Adelheid Firing Hvambsal 1.4 Anne Margrethe Ree Sunde 7 6 Tor Erling Fagermoen 5 Vegard Holm 1985 Knut Grønvik 1992 Markus Nilsen Rotevatn Korsvei 1981 Established Changemaker Norges KFUK-­‐
KFUM 2003 Misjonsforbundet Ung 2008 Laget 1947 KRIK Norges unge katolikker T A B L E 1. S A M P L E O V E R V IE W W IT H D E S C R IP T O R S
Appointed 2010 2006 2004 2010 2008 2006 2011 2008 2003 2008 Born 1985 1953 1974 1972 1980 1966 1989 1976 1959 1975 M M M M F F F M M M E P P P P P E P/U P U Informants Gender Paid/Elected
/Unpaid 83
2.2
The use of discipleship vocabulary in official documents
This subchapter focuses on the use of discipleship vocabulary in the organizations’ official
documents. Following the methodology (syntactics content analysis) accounted for in 1.5.1, I
will primarily report on the frequency of occurrences. The organizations are presented in this
order, from low to high. Frequency is of course an uncertain indicator of how an organization
understands the discipleship phenomenon on a strategic level, and only of limited interest if
viewed in isolation. Later, in chapters 3 through 6, I will give voice to the informants’ more
material understanding of discipleship in their context and in general. At this stage, however,
I will limit the description to what is evident within the organizations’ official documents.
There are several ways one could have categorized the organizations for the purpose
of later analysis.195 By making frequency of discipleship vocabulary in official documents the
criterion, the following three categories are established, which will be drawn upon later in the
analysis:
•
•
•
Low frequency organizations: <0.01% frequency.
(KRIK, Changemaker, Norges KFUK-KFUM, Norges unge katolikker)
Moderate frequency organizations: 0.03%–0.08%
(Trosopplæringen, Substans)
High frequency organizations: >0.2%
(Laget, Misjonsforbundet Ung, Ungdom i Oppdrag, Korsvei)
The categories look somewhat different than I expected. To some extent I will clarify
my own biased assumptions about the use of discipleship vocabulary in these organizations
along the way. The tension between my own assumptions and the organizations’ actual use of
discipleship vocabulary proved very helpful to me going into the interviews.
195
By taking historical experience in the use of discipleship vocabulary into account, for instance, alternative
categories could have been established. On the basis of the interviews it became clear that three of the lowfrequency organizations had little or no first-hand experience in using discipleship vocabulary. Their experiences,
then, are largely based on assumptions, more or less qualified. One of the low-frequency organizations, together
with the two moderate-frequency organizations, however, revealed considerable portions of first-hand
experience in using discipleship vocabulary. Their reluctance towards using discipleship vocabulary today, then,
represents a reflected stance. They have actively minimized their use on the basis of experience. A third category
could have made up by the two high-frequency organizations in which discipleship vocabulary has been
introduced quite recently. The last category could have been for high-frequency organizations with a long history
in using discipleship vocabulary. I chose to refrain from this and other categorizations as I found them less
helpful for analytical purposes.
84
2.2.1 Low frequency cases
Given the centrality of discipleship in Christian tradition, there is reason to pay careful
attention to organizations that seem to avoid any reference to discipleship. The documents
from four organizations in the sample leave very few signs of discipleship. In two cases,
Changemaker and KRIK, not a single vocabulary reference is made.
Changemaker: The fact that the official documents of Changemaker omit discipleship
vocabulary is not a great surprise. From what we saw above, Changemaker is first and
foremost a political activist organization, often referred to as the youth organization of
Norwegian Church Aid. It has an ideological base in Christian values and is an active
contributor to confirmation training in the Church of Norway. Other than that, its relationship
to Church is rather vague, and it tends to tone down the necessity of Christian faith as
motivation for social activism.
As expected I found few signs of discipleship in Changemaker’s documents. Was this
a reason to omit them from the sample? I concluded: no. Firstly, I thought it would be
interesting to hear them out in a conversation about their experiences on how, why and when
Christian faith motivates and demotivates them in their fight for political change. Secondly, I
wanted to present them with some pieces of discipleship theologies from Liberation Theology
and Anabaptist Theology which emphasize political activism – and get their response. To
speak of discipleship in terms of liberation, peace, compassion, and relief is not familiar to
most Norwegians. Finally, my curiosity grew about their general assumptions about
discipleship vocabulary as linguistic outsiderness, and to what extent personal stories and
experiences had colored their strategic choices.
KRIK: Changemaker’s reluctance towards discipleship vocabulary was as expected, but in the
case of KRIK it came as a surprise. I added KRIK to the sample without having read their
documents thoroughly. I simply assumed that discipleship would be really important to them.
Discipleship vocabulary did however not occur in a single instance in all the official
documents of KRIK. My initial reaction was of disbelief – a reaction that soon turned into
curiosity.
In my teenager years I often attended KRIK camps. It was there that I was introduced
to discipleship. And to be frank, it was probably the teaching on KRIK camps that eventually
fueled my interest in discipleship. Among secondary documents I have included a book KRIK
85
published for its “2,000+” festival at the turn of the millennium. The book, containing large
portions of the revised edition of Edin Løvås’ book on discipleship, was distributed to all
3,000 participants.196 Edin Løvås was also the main speaker at the festival, where he talked
about discipleship, so I knew that discipleship had a central place in the teaching of this
organization.
This finding would have made more sense to me if theological vocabulary or valuebased statements in general had been left out of the documents. But this was not nearly the
case. I drew the conclusion that discipleship in KRIK could be either (a) a clue to a change, a
gap between the past and the present, (b) a clue to a gap between strategic level vocabulary
and the “camp-level” vocabulary, or (c) a clue to a gap between a theology of discipleship and
the use of discipleship vocabulary.
These gaps became keys in the preparation for the interview: What kind of theological
and communicative negotiation had taken place? What pieces of theology and ideology are
appropriate for official documents, and for what reasons? And what arenas are viewed as
suitable for the use of discipleship vocabulary? Despite KRIK’s modest use of discipleship
vocabulary in writing, I found its relevance as contributor to answering the research question
obvious.
Norges unge katolikker: In the official documents of Norges unge katolikker there is one
single mention of discipleship, resulting in a frequency of 0.004%. This one example is
clearly the result of a personal preference or an individual’s slip of tongue, and not a part of
an adopted and accepted text. In the annual report for 2010-2011 the person responsible for
following up local groups states:
My goal is not to travel a lot around or to create big events. My hope and dream is that more
people will find peace and inner joy through faith, and receive strength to follow the Lord. I
know that through a great fellowship and in service for Him, we can grow in Gods love. Anne Lynn Leonen Gelacio (my emphasis)197
As in the case of KRIK, I anticipated finding at least some use of discipleship
vocabulary in the documents of Norges unge katolikker. I even had high hopes in finding a
well-developed theological concept of discipleship in this context. I should add that my prior
knowledge of present Catholicism on the ground in Norway is somewhat limited, and is
probably colored by theological studies in a Lutheran context. But given the doctrinal loyalty
196
197
Edin Løvås, Kristusbudskapet i 2000+ (Oslo: Luther, 1999).
Norges unge katolikker, “Årsrapport 2010-2011,” 31.
86
in the Catholic Church, I was for instance convinced that there would be strong influence of
Vatican II on the theology found in official documents of Norges unge katolikker. This did
not seem to be the case.
Many theologians before me have rehearsed how discipleship played an important role
in developing Roman Catholic ecclesiology in and after the last Church council (Vatican II).
Their argument usually takes its starting point in the repeated use of discipleship vocabulary
in Lumen Gentium, one of the major documents from Vatican II – still a valid doctrine.198 The
church as “community of disciples” was later given papal impetus and legitimacy at the
inauguration of John Paul II. Ecclesial discipleship was developed and conceptualized even
further when Avery Robert Dulles included a sixth and new model of church, church as
community of disciples, in his already acclaimed ecclesial typology – a model that could sum
up all the others. Later, discipleship has even been developed into the field of youth ministry
by Canadian scholar Richard M. Rymarz.199 To my surprise, this post-Vatican II story was not
reflected in the theology of Norges unge katolikker’s official documents – which raises a
number of interesting questions about voices of theology: doctrinal versus espoused, formal
and operant theology).
I was starting to look forward to the interview. The lack of discipleship in Norges
unge katolikker’s official documents was most likely not caused by doctrinal disobedience to
the mother church. I was however unable to imagine more plausible explanations – I had to
ask them.200
Norges KFUK-KFUM: In the official documents of Norges KFUK-KFUM the phrase
“discipleship” occurs on two occasions. Both accounts quote the Paris Basis of the YMCA
movement. The delegates of the founding World Conference first adopted this basis in 1855,
but it has been reaffirmed several times, as late as by the Sixth World Council of YMCAs in
1973:
198
See: Den katolske kirke, “Lumen Gentium,” http://www.katolsk.no/dokumenter/dokumenter-fravatikanet/paul6/lg
199
Pope John Paul II, “Redemptor hominis, encyclical letter, 4 March 1979” (1979),
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_04031979_redemptorhominis_en.html; Dulles, “Community of disciples as a model of church”; Dulles, Models of the church; Richard
M. Rymarz, “Principles of the new evangelization: Analysis and directions” (Australian Catholic University,
2010).
200
As I mentioned in the prior presentation: Norges unge katolikker is probably the one organization in the
sample with the most explicit declaration of doctrinal loyalty to its mother-organization. In many ways this
makes democracy possible within Norges unge katolikker: theology stands firm and has channels for
interpretation outside democracy.
87
The Young Men's Christian Associations seek to unite those young men who, regarding Jesus
Christ as their God and Saviour, according to the Holy Scriptures, desire to be his disciples in
their faith and in their life, and to associate their efforts for the extension of his Kingdom
amongst young men.201
The official documents of KFUK-KFUM was the first place I encountered a
phenomenon I later would see recurring in other parts of the material as well: there is a
quality to discipleship vocabulary that makes it strikingly often appear at the very highest
level of vision-statements and formulations of objectives in organizations. This even seems to
be the case in some organizations where discipleship vocabulary generally is in little use. We
see this in KFUK-KFUM, and also in the next organization to be presented, Trosopplæringen.
This raises questions about the relation between different levels of strategic
formulations. It also adds to what we saw in Norges unge katolikker, the relationship between
espoused theologies of the past and espoused/operant theologies of the present. I was eager to
follow up this line of thought in the interview with the executive.
2.2.2 Moderate frequency cases
Two organizations represent a middle ground in the use of discipleship vocabulary in their
official documents: Trosopplæringen has a frequency of 0.031% and Substans a frequency of
0.079%.
Trosopplæringen: The Plan for Christian Education “God gives – we share” (2010) contains a
more developed theology, strategy and education than most documents in the material. This
64-page long curriculum is a manual for the Church of Norway and replaces earlier plans and
guidelines for ministry aimed at the age group 0–18.202 Thirteen of a total of sixteen
occurrences of discipleship language in Trosopplæringen are found here. This in itself does
not tell us an awful lot. Things become more interesting, however, if we consider the when
and how of the occurrences.
Four of these occurrences are found in three quotations and one paraphrase of the
Gospels – referring to the historical disciples of Jesus.203 Twice “discipleship” is listed as
examples of core initiatives of “Christian faith in practice”.204 None of these occurrences is
particularly important for the analysis.
201
Norges KFUK-KFUM, “Lover for Norges KFUK-KFUM,” §1-3 - III.
Trosopplæringen, Gud gir - vi deler: plan for trosopplæring i Den norske kirke.
203
Matthew 28, John 6, John 6 and Acts 2. Trosopplæringen, Gud gir - vi deler: plan for trosopplæring i Den
norske kirke, 5, 6, 6, 10.
204
Ibid., 14, 49.
202
88
It becomes more interesting, however, when we realize that four out of thirteen
explicit references to discipleship are found in the introduction to the overall objectives of the
Plan of Christian Education. Discipleship vocabulary is used to introduce (a) the purpose of
Christian education in the Church of Norway, (b) the importance of Christian Education for
the 13–18 years age group (twice), and (c) the objective of the period of confirmation.205 This
resembles the use of discipleship vocabulary in Norges KFUK-KFUM: the ability to sneak in
teleological formulations at the grandest level.
The three remaining uses of discipleship vocabulary in the 64-page Plan all occur in
the same condensed paragraph – on “discipleship”. Comprehensive discipleship paragraphs
also appear in material from other organizations. The section about lifelong learning is
concluded this way:
The disciples who walked together with Jesus are good models of wanderers on the road of
faith. They got to know Jesus by being with him, gained education, had their own experiences
and participated in the working community. This way they experienced belonging and
developed their identity as disciples. To be a disciple of Jesus is to stand in a life- and
learning-relationship with the triune God. Christian education is therefore lifelong learning.
(my italics).206
For the purpose of understanding the use of discipleship vocabulary in this particular
organization it is useful to contrast this new plan with previous plans, and especially the two
that focused on the preparation of confirmants.207 In the former curriculum and handbook
from 1998, discipleship was not only a frequently occurring phrase – it was a key concept.
The concept called “discipleship pedagogy” was developed, framing what was talked about as
“a grand catechetical vision”, namely to “meet the confirmants the way the disciples were met,
to offer them teaching, adventures and experiences, in a way that would accommodate
confession to Christ”.208 Discipleship vocabulary was, in the now time-barred plan, a
theological and pedagogical characteristic. At this point, then, the Plan for Christian
Education represents a shift in vocabulary: from frequent to infrequent and from catechetical
significant to insignificant. This would have to be elaborated on in an interview.
205
Ibid., 4, 21, 21, 23.
Ibid., 5.
207
Kirkerådet, “Plan for konfirmasjonstiden i Den norske kirke” (Oslo: Kirkerådet, 1998); Kirkerådet, Håndbok
til Plan for konfirmasjonstiden i Den norske kirke (Oslo: Kirkerådet, 1998). For elaboration of this view, see
Trosopplæringen, Gud gir - vi deler: plan for trosopplæring i Den norske kirke, 6.
208
For an elaboration of this claim, see: Knut Tveitereid, “I interaktivitetens navn? Forkynnelse i grensesnittet
mellom evangeliet, kirken og kulturen,» in Grensesprengende: om forkynnelse for ungdom 15-18 år, ed. Bård
Mæland and Hans Austnaberg (Trondheim: Tapir akademisk forl., 2009).
206
89
By comparing the final Plan with its consultation draft from 2009209, we can follow
traces of the process in which this shift in discipleship vocabulary took place. The
consultation draft has the same four biblical references to the historical discipleship of Jesus.
It also has the two examples of core initiatives of “Christian faith in practice”. Even the
discipleship paragraph is in place, with only a few alterations in sentence structure etc. It is
interesting, however, that none of the four references to discipleship in the formulations of
overall objectives are there. The interview would hopefully reveal why these occurrences
were first removed (in the consultation draft) and later reintroduced in the final Plan.
Substans: There are only five explicit occurrences of discipleship vocabulary in the
documents of Substans. This still represents a frequency of 0.079% – due to a moderate
number and length of official documents in the organization. (The organization is young and
low on formalization – it is organized more like a loosely knit network). This account is based
on the 2012 volumes of monthly newsletters along with the self-presentation as it were in
January 2013 on the webpage (www.substasielt.no).210 As in Trosopplæringen and to some
extent in Norges KFUK-KFUM, the first reference to discipleship is made in the very first
paragraph of the self-presentation:
About Substans: Substans is a Christian practice network for tangible following of Christ
integrated in all aspects of life. We want to explore and experiment with how to let the will of
God be practiced on earth as in heaven. (My trans. and italics).211
This statement, which should not be understood as an arbitrary introduction to the
organization, but more of a vision statement for the movement as such, reoccurs in several
variations on the webpage: “The goal of everything Substans is engaged with is integrated
Jesus-followship” and “Close to 80% of our income comes from people committed to our
work for practical Jesus-followship integrated in all [areas] of life”.
In the twelve issues of the 2012 newsletters I was only been able to find two explicit
references to discipleship:
Newsletter #3 2012: Five people have recently completed 30 days of Truth experiments,
where we have custom-made personal experiments to take action about the gap between where
we are and where we actually want to be as followers of Jesus.
209
See Trosopplæringen, «Vi deler. Plan for trosopplæring i Den norske kirke. Revidert utkast 2009” (Oslo:
Kirkerådet, 2009), www.kirken.no
210
The web presentation of the organization has the following sub-headlines: “About Substans”, “Practice”,
“Jesusdojo”, “Ascesis” and “Activism”, “History”, “Mantra”, and “Become a supporter”. Substans, "Self
presentation".
211
Ibid.
90
Newsletter #5 2012: Some days later a Bible group celebrated the end of 30 days of
experiments of personal Jesus following with a potluck party.
I sense some of the same patterns in Substans as I did in Trosopplæringen and KFUKKFUM. On the level of grand visions, the use of discipleship vocabulary seems appropriate.
In body text, however, elaborative and clarifying formulations are left out. The documents do
not leave the impression that discipleship has a place in the working language of either
organization. As much as this was expected in Trosopplæringen it was a surprise to me in
Substans – for at least three reasons:
Firstly, Substans was founded on the inspiration of the Re-Imagine movement in San
Francisco, USA. Without getting into details, it is fair to say that the spirituality of ReImagine is developed on discipleship vocabulary. Many of the central concepts and practices
of Re-Imagine are imported to Norway in and through Substans. The vocabulary, however, is
not.212
Secondly, Substans has over some time shown strong affiliation with Korsvei, one of
the other organizations in the sample.213 In many ways they seem to share the same
theological and spiritual identity. But where Korsvei has framed its identity on discipleship
vocabulary, it seems as if Substans has reached for its own deliberately without the use of
discipleship vocabulary.
Thirdly, in Substans we find a number of concepts that are widely associated with
discipleship: Practice is a key word in Substans.214 Activities are talked about either as
ascetism or activism. Training is the central purpose of gathering people. Jesus is talked about
in metaphors of a teacher. Many would say that these are features of discipleship spirituality.
Still, the people of Substans seem to think otherwise. These are topics for an interview.
212
As examples of this, see for instance the following book-chapters from the Pastor of Re-Imagine: “Following
the way of the Rabbi” in ibid., or the “Rabbi and Revolutionary”, “Jesus the Teacher” and “Surrendering to
Apprenticeship” in Mark Scandrette, Practicing the way of Jesus: Life together in the kingdom of God (Downers
Grove, IL: IVP Books, 2011). The first of the two, has been translated into Norwegian by Stian Kilde Aarebrot,
the executive of Substans: Mark Scandrette, Soul graffiti: Making a life in the way of Jesus (San Fransisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass, 2007).
In this context it is also worth mentioning that the discipleship of Dallas Willard at an early stage influenced the
shaping of Re-Imagine immensely; http://markscandrette.com/resources/history-development-of-Re-Imagine/
213
The mutual and close relationship between the two organizations is confirmed by both parties on the web
pages of both organizations and by informants in the interviews.
214
Henry Nouwen is quoted on the web page, saying: “You don’t think your way into a new kind of living. You
live your way into a new kind of thinking.”.
91
2.2.3 High frequency cases
We now turn to the official documents of the remaining four organizations in the sample.
These are the organizations having the most frequent use of discipleship vocabulary.
Laget: The frequency of references to discipleship in the selected official documents coming
from Laget is 0.210%, a total of 28 times. One initial observation is that the use of
discipleship vocabulary is unevenly distributed in the different documents. Three of the
documents hold 27 out of 28 occurrences: 13 in the Strategy plan, 8 in the biannual report,
and 6 in the Action plan.215 The Law document, for instance, makes plenty of theological
references, but without mentioning discipleship. The self-presentation of Laget on its web site
(www.nkss.no) (downloaded in 2010, now removed) makes only one mention of discipleship
– a paraphrase of Matthew 28.216
The three documents that contain discipleship vocabulary are of a more recent date,
while the two that prefer alternative vocabulary are of earlier origin. This observation seems
to suggest a recent shift in vocabulary on the strategic level of this organization – a shift from
non-use to use. This assumption finds backing in the book Lagsfolk (1993), the history of
Laget. In this fairly comprehensive account (205 pages covering a seventy-year long history)
we find only one single occurrence of discipleship vocabulary, a reference to an awakening
back in 1937.217
I elaborate this point because I think the shift of vocabulary in Laget represents a
wider phenomenon, with parallels to several other low-church Lutheran organizations.
Historically, Laget emerged out of the prayer-house movement. Although it is unique in its
focus on schools and its commitment to students, it still belongs to the Lutheran missionary
and lay tradition in culture and identity. Like several of its companion organizations, Laget
has experienced a dramatic decline over the last decades, forcing it to reconsider its strategies.
Examples of this are a renewed ecumenical profile and a more open attitude towards female
ministers in office. A frequent use of discipleship vocabulary on the strategic level could be
another. Discipleship has never been a dominant linguistic, theological, or strategic feature in
the prayer-house vocabulary. The high frequency of discipleship vocabulary in the recent
documents of Laget does however seem to suggest that it is about to become one.
215
Laget, "Fra Organisasjon til bevegelse. Lagets strategiplan 2012-2016."; Laget, Utkast til handlingsplan
01.01.12-30.06.2013."; Laget, "Lagets Toårsmelding 2010-2011."
216
Laget, "Lover for Norges kristelige student- og skoleungdomslag."; Laget, Self presentation".
217
Vidar Kristensen, Lagsfolk: Norges kristelige student- og skoleungdomslag 1924-1994 (Oslo: Credo, 1993),
38.
92
In assuming this, several questions arise: Why has this change taken place, what are
the underlying reasons? Are there any probable explanations? Is this change a deliberate one?
Is it part of a more fundamental theological shift? And what kind of envisioned effects will
such a change of language lead to in the organizations? These are central topics for the
interview with the informant from Laget.
The documents themselves do actually give us some initial clues. In the strategy plan
from 2012, for instance, discipleship is outlined as a central element in changing Laget from
an organization to a movement. In Laget’s discipleship we see the outline of a strategic model
that focuses on a few at the time, and with the envisioned consequence of an increase in
student initiative, a more dynamic organization, and an impact on many people:
In a plan named “From organization to movement” it is important to say something about the
content of what we are doing. We have therefore chosen disciple-making, practical love, and
evangelization as areas of commitment for the next four years.
If we want to be a movement marked by student initiative, we need to see youth that are
decisive and equipped as disciples of Jesus. For Laget the most important thing should not be
to make broad happenings that gather a lot of people, but deep happenings where people are
seen and invested in as individuals, trained as leaders, and given a systematic education. “Go
and make disciples” was the commandment of Jesus. We do not believe in a shallow
Christianity marked by certain viewpoints and certain environments, but in mature,
multiplying and vibrant Jesus-witnesses in the schoolyard and on campus. Jesus said: “We
shall be in the world, but not of it”. Jesus’ and Paul’s model was to invest a lot in the few to
reach the many. (My italics).218
It is no surprise, then, that discipleship is an area of priority. The action plan for the
period from January 1, 2012, to June 30, 2013, outlines the making of disciples as one of five
areas of commitment. The plan concretizes an emphasis on both smaller and bigger
discipleship-groups, and the need to develop material and concepts that can support such
groups. The interview with the executive will necessarily have a special interest in finding out
how he understands the shift in vocabulary and what really is at stake here.
Misjonsforbundet Ung: The discipleship vocabulary frequency of 0.382% by itself suggests
that discipleship is vital to Misjonsforbundet Ung. Their online self-presentation has the
highest frequency of discipleship vocabulary of all documents in the sample, with an
incredible 4.874% – close to one in every twenty words.
218
Laget, "Fra Organisasjon til bevegelse. Lagets strategiplan 2012-2016," 3–4.
93
“To make disciples”, together with “developing leaders” and “passing on the Gospel”,
are identified as the three main goals of the organization.219 Misjonsforbundet Ung has
actually worked out its own definition of what discipleship entails. It reappears several times
in the documents: “A disciple follows the word of God in thought and in action”. The
documents of Misjonsforbundet Ung, similar to those of Trosopplæringen, also contain a
“discipleship paragraph”. Discipleship is here related to learning from Jesus, equality of
believers, and the sending to the world:
What is a disciple? A disciple is a person learning from Jesus. Disciple means apprentice, and
disciple life is to walk together with Jesus, to seek to learn from the master, and to follow
Jesus in everyday life. Discipleship is to be in a process of learning where we see bit by bit. A
disciple is eager to learn, is challenged and is developed in relation to his master. The disciple
calling is for everybody. Disciples are not an elite among the believers, but are the entire and
diverse crowd that has answered yes to Jesus when he says: “Follow me!” Jesus gave his
friends the mission to go out and make all people disciples, and the invitation is still open for
everyone today. (My trans. and italics).220
The way discipleship vocabulary is used and operates in the documents opens for
some interesting observations: One fourth of all references to discipleship are in the
documents’ headlines, a characteristic shared by other organizations in the sample.
(Compared with others, there are not particularly many headlines in Misjonsforbundet Ung’s
documents.) Risking the danger of hasty conclusions, it seems as if discipleship vocabulary in
this organizational context is thought of as having powerful communicative qualities. It is
most definitely not something one needs to hide away in footnotes.
Another striking observation is that discipleship vocabulary is used as part of a brand
or name in approximately one third of the occurrences. Two specific brands stand out: the
“disciple cross” and the Disciple Pulse program. Disciple crosses are actual jewelry crosses in
silver and gold that are sold online. But more than that, the disciple cross is officially adopted
as the logo of Misjonsforbundet Ung. For the second time in the material, we come across
Edin Løvås, this time as the designer of the disciple cross. As a long-time member of
Misjonsforbundet, he has transferred all sales rights to the youth organization of his
denomination. The other concept, Disciple Pulse, is a monastic-inspired program that is
introduced as an attempt to pursue the discipleship teaching of Edin Løvås. The aim is to give
tangible and open answers to what it is to be a Christian in our everyday lives. It seeks to
encourage young people to participate in different Christian practices.221
219
Misjonsforbundet Ung, Årboka 2011: Landsmøte, 19.- 20. november i Skien misjonskirke: 6.
Misjonsforbundet Ung, "Self presentation".
221
Misjonsforbundet Ung and Haugland, "Disippelpuls."
220
94
If we consider the remaining occurrences, discipleship seems to refer to a particular
identity (being a disciple), a particular mode of living (living the disciple life), and a
particular process (making disciples). At this point the occurrences are fairly equally
distributed.
For the celebration of the centenary in 2012, Misjonsforbundet Ung published the
history of the movement.222 In this booklet discipleship vocabulary is used a total of twentyseven times. All occurrences, except one, refer to the time-period after the year 2000. This
would also need attention in the interview, but as a preliminary it seems as if
Misjonsforbundet Ung within the last decade also represents a shift towards discipleship
vocabulary.
Ungdom i Oppdrag: I suggested that the two previous organizations, Laget and
Misjonsforbundet Ung, represented a shift in discipleship vocabulary. Very little suggests that
the next two organizations, Ungdom i Oppdrag and Korsvei, follow the same shift. Here,
discipleship vocabulary has been an important element since their establishment, respectively
in 1972 and 1985. Ungdom i Oppdrag, and Korsvei for that matter, are interesting cases of
organizations that have used discipleship vocabulary actively over time. Ungdom i Oppdrag is
in the minds of most people associated with discipleship. A terminological frequency of
0.584% in the documents testifies to this. Through books, preaching, and an impressive
network of DTSs (Disciple Training Schools), the organization has spread the message of
discipleship for decades.
Like Substans, Ungdom i Oppdrag is also hesitant to adopt strict formalization,
including the production of documents. In the following I will refer to the self-presentation on
the Norwegian web page, the self-presentation on the international web page, and an edition
of DTS-Magasinet, an annual magazine presenting the Norwegian DTSs of the movement.
One should however keep in mind the danger of drawing hasty conclusions based on
documents produced by organizations low on formalization – the hearts of these organizations
are simply found elsewhere. Still, the documents of Ungdom i Oppdrag give hints of a
surprising linguistic practice: The magazine mentions discipleship a total of sixty-three times,
but only nine of these actually spell out “disciple”/”discipleship”.223 In the remaining fiftyfour occurrences the abbreviation “DTS” is used. This is of course connected to the fact that
222
Schuff, Misjonsforbundet Ungs historie 1912-2012.
This is supported by the fact that six out of nine fully spelled-out occurrences actually are
“disippeltreningsskole” (Disciple Training School). In the self-presentation on the Norwegian webpage, we once
again see the same pattern: four of the eight spelled-out references to discipleship are as part of the compound
word “disippeltreningsskole”.
223
95
this is a DTS magazine. But the same tendency is observable in the self-presentation given on
the Norwegian web page, but somewhat less extreme. Of a total of nineteen occurrences, DTS
was mentioned eleven times while “disciple/-ship” is spelled out only eight times. At least in
writing, discipleship vocabulary is intuitively connected to the schools of the movement, and
less developed in other contexts.224
I think it is an astonishing fact that in the documents of an organization that in the
minds of most people is the discipleship-movement per se, discipleship vocabulary only
occurs in seven instances as a reference to something other than a name of a school. If we
subtract the DTS abbreviations and references to DTSs, Ungdom i Oppdrag belongs to the
moderate frequency category together with Trosopplæringen and Substans. My intuition,
however, is that such a conclusion lacks support; the documents are at this point not
representative. (In the self-presentation of YWAM on the international web page, the numbers
are opposite. Here, “DTS” is mentioned once, “Discipleship Training School” twice, while
ten mentions are made of discipleship in reference to something else. This might in fact
suggest a considerable divergence between the Norwegian wing of Ungdom i Oppdrag and
the international YWAM organization.) In any case, the need for a supplementary interview is
evident.
Besides the dominant use of discipleship vocabulary in reference to DTS, it is also
used on three other occasions: Once, in the list of areas of attention, it is used in reference to
making disciples:
We seek ways to make disciples, amongst other things, by offering education and short
courses. This happens amongst other places through our international university, University of
the Nations.
Twice we find it in the list of foundational values. While the first occurrence is in a
paraphrase of the Great Commission (Matthew 28:19), the second is more interesting. It
emphasizes discipleship in relation to the core value of modeling Jesus in exhibiting servant
leadership:
YWAM is called to servant leadership as a lifestyle, rather than a leadership hierarchy. A
servant leader is one who honors the gifts and callings of those under his/her care and guards
their rights and privileges. Just as Jesus served His disciples, we stress the importance of those
with leadership responsibilities serving those whom they lead.225
224
http://ywam.org/en/About-YWAM/Who-we-are/The-Foundational-Values-of-Youth-With-A-Mission and
http://www.ywam.no/om-Ungdom i Oppdrag/Ungdom i Oppdrags-grunnleggende-verdier/
225
The “foundational values” further elaborate the threefold aim as: (a) to work theologically with the
interpretation of the Christian faith for our time, (b) to create meeting places in order to inspire disciple-living,
(c) to lovingly develop creative and prophetic signs of life and concrete actions that demonstrate what Jesus’
96
Korsvei: The frequency of discipleship vocabulary in Korsvei’s official documents made it a
self-evident choice to include this organization in the sample. With a frequency of 0.743%
Korsvei is at the very high end of the spectrum. As I would soon find out, the high number is
also an indicator of the substantial role discipleship plays in the strategies of Korsvei.
Statements that support this are scattered around throughout the material. Already in the bylaw we find a most explicit example:
Korsvei is an ecumenical movement, born out of a longing to live like disciples of Jesus in our
time.226
The question: “what does it imply to be a disciple of Christ today?” (hereafter referred
to as “the discipleship-question”) occurs nine times in the material. The question was the title
of the very first festival in 1985 and has remained as a cornerstone ever since. It is presented
as the driving force in the movement, the question that everything else revolves around.227
After having kept the question open-ended for a decade or so, the movement started to
answer this question in the early 1990s. This work resulted in what later would be known as
the four “road signs”: (a) to seek Jesus Christ, (b) to live more simply, (c) to build fellowship,
and (d) to fight for justice. Today these road signs are probably the most widely known
ideological statement from the movement, even more than the discipleship question.
Yet another decade later people uttered the need for concepts of communal living and
monastic inspired rules to support a road sign lifestyle. As the road signs once had been
drawn from the discipleship question, a new concept, the road grips, was drawn from the road
signs. Contrary to the road signs, The road grips are once again presented with the use of
discipleship vocabulary. I return to this point in chapter 4.
The use of discipleship vocabulary in Korsvei implies an attempt to expand and renew
spirituality. In Gudsrikets gåte (Trans.: The riddle of the Kingdom of God) (2005), an
anthology published by Korsvei, Knut Grønvik elaborates the theological heart of Korsvei as
radical calling implies today. Ungdom i Oppdrag, "DTS-magasinet 2012. Ungdom i Oppdrags
disippeltreningsskoler."; ibid.
226
Korsvei, "Vedtekter for Stiftelsen Korsvei."
227
After a decade or so, in the early 1990s, the movement started to formulate answers to this question, and
created what later would be known as the four road signs: to seek Jesus Christ, to live more simply, to build
fellowship, and to fight for justice. These road signs are probably the most well-known statements of the
movement, even more than the discipleship question.
As the road signs were drawn from the discipleship question, the road grips concept (another central feature of
Korsvei) was drawn from the road signs. After a decade of practicing the road signs, some people expressed the
need for concepts of communal living and monastic inspired rules to support a road-sign lifestyle. In the road
grip pamphlet, contrary to the road sign pamphlet, the language of discipleship occurs – with full strength, I
should add. The road grips are presented in a discipleship-saturated language. I return to this point in chapter 4.
97
a quest for clear questions, not clear answers. “Clear questions uphold curiosity, keep the
longing alive, and the disciple in motion”, he writes.228 And later:
In our Norwegian Christian tradition the preaching on Christ has centered on what he has done
for us and what he gives. Jesus is our savior and redeemer. He died for us – so we could live.
This heritage is essential to us, but we will not delimit Jesus to be a provider, or someone who
did something long ago that we might need some time in the future. We seek the relation to
Jesus; the personal discipleship relationship to the master and the close friendship of the Son
of Man.229
In the Korsvei documents discipleship vocabulary is used in at least three ways. About
one third of the occurrences refer to a certain identity. Phrases like “life as disciples of Christ”,
“being a disciple”, “A disciple is…” permeate the documents. At other times, also counting
one third of the mentions, discipleship refers to a particular mode of living as Christians. It is
about practice in a certain state of mind, an attitude. A final third of the occurrences refer to
an ideal, not yet reached. Here the intentionality of the movement becomes clear. They talk
about the longing for discipleship, the wish to become more like disciples, and the fullness of
discipleship as something to reach for.
Discipleship is not conceptualized or branded similar to that of Laget’s discipleship
groups, or Ungdom i Oppdrag’s Disciple Training Schools, or Misjonsforbundet Ung’s
disciple cross and Disciple Pulse program. In Korsvei discipleship is kept on an abstract level.
Even when concepts are developed from the discipleship question, such as in the road signs
and road grips, discipleship vocabulary is never used to brand the final concept. The only
exception from this, that I have found, is the leadership program for teenagers called
“Disciples on the road”.
2.3
Preliminary summary: Discipleship vocabulary in official documents
In this chapter I have traced the distinctive features and character of each organization in the
sample. As Norwegian Christian youth organizations they share a lot of common ground – but
still there are noticeable differences. This is evident in their use of discipleship vocabulary in
official documents. The categories low, moderate, and high frequency are descriptive of the
organizational variance at this point.
This chapter revealed several striking, surprising and seemingly contradictory uses of
discipleship vocabulary in formally adopted strategies – issues which were brought along to
the interviews.
228
229
Grønvik, “Korsveis linje?” 9.
Ibid., 11.
98
Some organizations would avoid discipleship vocabulary completely on a strategic
level, contrary to their organizational practice (KRIK), or Church doctrine (Norges unge
katolikker). Others again, like Substans, would avoid using discipleship vocabulary despite
admittedly having organizations that use discipleship vocabulary extensively as their biggest
sources of inspiration. We have recognized the tendency for discipleship vocabulary to be
used at the very highest level of strategic formulations (KFUK-KFUM, Trosopplæringen,
Substans, Laget, Misjonsforbundet Ung, Korsvei), and have seen how discipleship vocabulary
is active in branding (Misjonsforbundet Ung, Ungdom i Oppdrag, Korsvei). Some
organizations represent a shift from high to low in their use of discipleship vocabulary
(Trosopplæringen, Ungdom i Oppdrag), while others again, represent the opposite shift, from
low to high (Laget, Misjonsforbundet Ung). Hints are also given that, for some, discipleship
vocabulary is thought to have a certain transformative effect on organizational culture.
99
T A B L E 2: F R E Q U E N C Y O F D IS C IP L ES H IP V O C A B U L A R Y IN OF F IC IA L D O C U M E N T S
Document type
By-law, Laws,
Objects clause
etc.
Strategy Plans
Curriculums
etc.
Selfpresentations
(web or print)
Annual Reports,
Newsletters etc.
Total
Changemaker
Documents
Word count
Occurrences
Frequency
1
2555
0
0.000 %
3
16476
0
0.000 %
1
1813
0
0.000 %
1
2916
0
0.000 %
6
23760
0
0.000 %
KRIK
Documents
Word count
Occurrences
Frequency
1
657
0
0.000 %
3
5620
0
0.000 %
1
2767
0
0.000 %
1
6268
0
0.000 %
6
15312
0
0.000 %
Norges unge katolikker
Documents
Word count
Occurrences
Frequency
2
2512
0
0.000 %
1
7852
0
0.000 %
1
1477
0
0.000 %
1
13513
1
0.007 %
5
25354
1
0.004 %
Norges KFUK-KFUM
Documents
Word count
Occurrences
Frequency
4
4806
2
0.042 %
1
458
0
0.000 %
1
14574
0
0.000 %
Total
6
19838
2
0.010 %
2
13186
3
0.023 %
1
13132
0
0.000 %
4
50859
16
0.031 %
1
1095
3
0.274 %
12
5257
2
0.038 %
13
6352
5
0.079 %
2
5012
19
0.379 %
1
1460
1
0.068 %
1
5739
8
0,139 %
5
13321
28
0.210 %
2
7878
3
0.241%
1
636
31
4.874 %
2
15579
42
0.270%
5
24093
92
0.382 %
Trosopplæringen
Documents
Word count
Occurrences
Frequency
1
24541
13
0.053 %
Substans
Documents
Word count
Occurrences
Frequency
Laget
Documents
Word count
Occurrences
Frequency
1
1110
0
0.000 %
Misjonsforbundet Ung
Documents
Word count
Occurrences
Frequency
Ungdom i Oppdrag
Documents
Word count
Occurrences
Frequency
Korsvei
Documents
Word count
Occurrences
Frequency
3
15933
95
0.596 %
1
794
3
0.378 %
3
10693
77
0.720 %
100
3
15933
95
0.596 %
2
4256
37
0.869 %
6
15743
117
0.743 %
3
INTERPRETANTS: EXECUTIVES’ ASSUMPTIONS
Obtaining interviews with sufficient quality and relevance for the project has been a concern
from the start. There are multiple factors that determine quality of empirical material. Among
them is most certainly the informants’ willingness to open up about the actual object of study.
In this case, I anticipated that this could be an obstacle – especially among informants from
organizations with low and moderate frequency of discipleship vocabulary, due to the
emotional ambiguity connected to discipleship. In preparation for the interviews I tried to
keep this in mind (See 1.5).
Upon having conducted all the interviews and produced written transcripts, my first
move was to do a brief word count of discipleship vocabulary. To my relief, it seemed as if all
informants had wanted to contribute – at least to the extent that the actual use of discipleship
vocabulary in the interview situation is an indicator of willingness to talk on the topic. The
chart below (Figure 4) visualizes the frequency of discipleship vocabulary in the official
documents (black) alongside the frequency of discipleship vocabulary in the answers of the
informants in interview transcripts (white) for each organization.
1,200 %
1,000 %
0,800 %
0,600 %
Frequence of discipleship
vocabulary in official
documents
Freqence discipleship
vocabulary in Interviews
0,400 %
0,200 %
0,000 %
F IG U R E 4: D IS C IP L E S H IP V O C A B U L A R Y IN D O C U M E N T S A N D IN T E R V IE W S .
101
All informants use discipleship vocabulary more frequently in the interview than their
organizations have done in their official documents. This naturally follows from the
announced topics in the interview setting. Without making too much out of it, I did find it
fascinating and comforting that, for instance, the informants from KRIK, Trosopplæringen,
and Misjonsforbundet Ung all used discipleship vocabulary approximately to the same extent
in the interview. (Together they represent all frequency categories.) It also stirred some
interest in me to realize that the informant from Laget (a high-frequency organization) and
Norges unge katolikker (a low-frequency organization) used discipleship vocabulary on an
equal scale in the interviews.
Chapters 4–6 will bring the informants’ use of discipleship vocabulary in interview
into detailed analysis. Here in chapter 3, however, the focus is more on the material side –
how the informants actually understand the significance of discipleship. As previously stated,
in semiotics the term Interpretants is the effect or impression of a sign (in this case:
discipleship vocabulary) on someone who comprehends it (in this case: the strategic
organizational level). Morris states that any sign creates in the interpreter a new sign, which
he calls interpretant. In this chapter I therefore try to give an accurate description of what I
believe is the informants’ comprehension of this topic – what they believe the significance of
discipleship vocabulary to be on a strategic level. Eventually the aim is to understand better
what a use of discipleship vocabulary signals and signifies on a strategic level in their
organizational context. What becomes clear through this is that the assumptions of the
informants go in a multitude of directions. One informant said, for instance:
Saying that you want to make disciples, makes you anything but sharp. […] Sometimes you
just have to stop using a word, especially if it is suffering from overuse and has lost all its
power. The simple reason we do not use “discipleship” is because all Christians speak about
discipleship, but it means different things to everybody. Why should we come along and add
one more interpretation to what discipleship really is about?
While another informant assumed quite the opposite:
What triggers me with discipleship is that it is a concept yet unexplored and far from settled.
This is what makes it challenging, not just theological, but also practical. Personally, I still feel
the need to be discipled. To me it is not about what we do with new Christians in their first
year, to me it is about how we help each other in our daily walk with Jesus, the challenges I
face in different situations.
As the interviews were structured in three sections, this chapter reports on the middle
one, the section concerning discipleship in their specific organizational context. The
organizations will be presented in the same order as in chapter 2, according to the frequency
of their use of discipleship vocabulary in their official documents.
102
3.1
A sign of self-absorption (Changemaker)
The question of discipleship is to me in itself misguided. I simply cannot call myself a disciple,
or speak about Changemaker as disciples. It doesn’t feel right. And that is out of respect for
the variety of opinions and beliefs among the members in our organization.
I soon realized that discipleship is categorically ruled out in Changemaker. The burning issue
concerning organizational identity is on an even more basic level. According to executive
Markus Nilsen Rotevatn, the question whether or not Changemaker is, or wants to be, or
should be, a Christian youth organization, remains open. To describe Changemaker as a
Christian organization is of course perfectly justifiable on a formal level; it is after all the
youth organization of Norwegian Church Aid. The objects clause also states that the
organization bases its activity on Jesus’ word about brotherly love – alongside the United
Nations Declaration of Human Rights. But the organization does not seem entirely settled or
content with “being Christian”.230 Nilsen Rotevatn brought up the identity question again and
again throughout the interview, and entered it from a number of different angles. Discipleship
in Changemaker, I believe, could only be understood against this backdrop.
Nilsen Rotevatn confirms that the omission of discipleship vocabulary in the official
documents is not coincidental: “Discipleship does not play any part in any discourse on any
level of the organization”, he says. “We have a basic thought that Changemaker is for
everybody, independent of religion and party-politics, and realize that a reference to Jesus in
some cases could be experienced as opposing this.” He tells that the history of Changemaker
is full of non-Christian members, atheists even, showing a lot of passion and contributing
immensely: “We don’t keep track of our members’ faiths. It’s irrelevant to know who’s
Christian and who is not.” For Nilsen Rotevatn, people’s beliefs do not affect the everyday
work of the organization. “What we discuss is how the world is unfair, what we can do, and
how we can do it,” he says.
Motivation is found not in faith but in the injustice they see in the world and in
teaming up with other activists. “Our main ideology is to change the world, and we believe
coming together from different faiths and backgrounds is the best way to achieve this. That is
when the good ideas emerge,” he says. Nilsen Rotevatn mentions a campaign called Jubilee
230
Prior to the interview I was unaware that Vårt Land, a Norwegian Christian newspaper, had just recently
published an article stating that my interviewee wanted to remove the reference to Jesus in the objects clause. He
claimed in a reply a few days later he was misquoted, but admitted that the Christian ideological basis of
Changemaker is an ongoing debate in the organization. Vårt Land March 30, 2011.
103
2000 and the demonstrations in Birmingham at the G8 convention as good examples of what
happens when Christians pull together with people from other faiths. When listening to Nilsen
Rotevatn it becomes clear that the fight for social justice is the heart of the organization.
Everything else, even personal faith, is subordinate. Against this background it is easier to
understand why most forms of discipleship are irrelevant and misguiding.
The interview took a turn when Nilsen Rotevatn started to share experiences from his
upbringing. In the town he was raised, Christian youth work was heavily influenced by a
group of people he described as a “confined Christian environment”. He experienced little
room for deviation, and at one point he was even frozen out. This group is to this day his main
reference to Christianity framed in the vocabulary of discipleship. “They really believed they
were disciples”, he said. Needless to say, his connotations of discipleship were not of a
positive kind: “I had different opinions from those that talked a lot about being disciples, and
for a while I burned my fingers.” He admits this experience has colored his view, and
continues to do so even today.
To be focused on being disciples is too attached to a way of being Christian that I will not
spend much time and effort on: Doing mission and that sort of thing. Their mission-trips go to
warm and exotic places financed by the support of friends. In my view this is a really selfish
form of involvement.
I associate people that talk a lot about discipleship with people thinking they are elevated
above the rest of us. (...) But I guess some people would look at us the same way; we call
ourselves activists and committed individuals. I guess some people would see that as selfexaltation too.
In some respects these experiences are reflected in the way in which he leads and
understands the identity of Changemaker today. To him, a clear Christian identity is
insufficient as motivation for political involvement. He does however strongly call for more
political engagement from the Church: “We have a mission toward the churches. We want to
let them understand that they are an important actor in social change, one of the biggest grassroots movements, and in many countries it [the church] still has considerable power,” he says.
Christian people should not be politically active because they are Christians, but because they
are people. Churches should to a larger degree engage in matters that concern all of
humankind, and be less involved in matters that concern Christians only. Discipleship, to him,
represents quite the opposite.
In the interview I introduced discipleship in a liberation-theology tradition and
Anabaptist tradition. I thought that perhaps Gutierrez’s concept of discipleship of the poor and
Yoder’s political/pacifist discipleship would resonate with Changemaker’s engagement. But
104
Nilsen Rotevatn was not overly enthusiastic. While Gutierrez and Yoder have high hopes of
connecting faith and social commitment, he consistently argues for separating the two. In
Nilsen Rotevatn’s mind, political involvement should be detached from faith.
To summarize: Any clear Christian identity, including discipleship, is self-absorbing
and does not lead to or engage in political activism. Even when clear Christian identity leads
to political action, as in the discipleship of Anabaptists and liberation theologians, it is
problematic. Any clear Christian identity, including that of being a disciple, is in
Changemaker inescapably associated with self-absorption at some level – and maybe even
part of the problem.
3.2
A sign for inside use (KRIK)
[Discipleship] has no significance for our target-group, or for the people we want to serve.
The term “disciple” typically works within the organization, within the Christian sphere or bubble.
Disciple is a straightforward word on the inside, but outside it has no meaning.
The interview with Vegard Holm, the executive of KRIK, got off to a rocky start. Even before
I had pressed the record-button on the digital audio device, he expressed some dissatisfaction
with how I had come to describe KRIK on the phone earlier. By a slip of the tongue, I had to
his recollection said something like, “Amongst other things, I would be interested in talking
about why there is no talk about discipleship in KRIK.”
“Just as you know”, he said, “we speak a lot about discipleship in KRIK, everywhere
and all the time, in fact”. He made it clear that teaching on discipleship is evident on most
arenas throughout the organization: on camps and festivals, leadership courses, among the
staff at the headquarters, at the district offices, at their Bible college, and at colleges with a
KRIK study program. I excused my comment and tried to clarify that it was in the official
documents I had not found any mentioning of discipleship – to my surprise, I added. To him,
however, this was exactly how things should be.
I soon realized that what at first had appeared to be a clumsy start, had become a
decisive event, a lens by which discipleship in KRIK could be understood. The frequent use
of discipleship on the ground and the minimal use in the official documents represent an
interesting divergence. The question was why? What are the assumptions underlying
discipleship that makes the use on the strategic level in the organization so different from the
use on the ground?
105
In the first part of the interview we reviewed the impressive growth of the
organization. Holm confirms that basically all numbers have pointed in the same direction for
thirty consecutive years: upwards. He attributes the growth of KRIK to an organizational
culture where individuals can flourish. This again is part of an overall organizational strategy.
The operations are not run from headquarters. The aim of the employees is always to make
room for individuals, spot talent, challenge people and support initiatives, and to open arenas
for grass-roots involvement. “Our choice of strategy is to have little strategy,” Holm explains.
The light managerial hand from the top of the organization he related to a core value of
freedom. The organization is run through positive affirmation, not criticizing what is
questionable. Freedom also suggests a short way from idea to realization, with a minimum of
bureaucracy on the way and simple office routines. This freedom even includes a theological
ecumenical openness. “The core value of freedom implies discernment in leadership,” Holm
says. He describes the greatest challenge as KRIK leader as being to know when to be distinct
and directive and when not to be. Take members’ initiatives, for instance; these are so vital
that they are generally never corrected – any initiative deserves some affirmation. It is not
important, he claims, that leaders have it their way. It is far more important that many people
are involved, and activities flourish, without any ideological intrusion from the leadership.
Could this freedom-seeking leadership strategy explain the gap in the use of
discipleship on the ground and the official documents? Are the documents so to speak
reflecting the actual will of the top of the organization? And, in that case, is this gap in fact an
inconsistency or tension between the top level and the rest of the organization – gracefully
allowed by the practice of freedom in leadership? To this we would have to say no. First of all
because Holm has already testified that discipleship vocabulary is present on all levels of the
organization, including the top level. Secondly, because Holm repeatedly insists the official
documents represent the grass-roots activities of KRIK. We will have to look elsewhere for a
feasible explanation.
The value of freedom is connected to another core value, namely clarity.231 According
to Holm, KRIK is also a light traveler when it comes to theology. “We do not push doctrines
and theology in front of us,” he says. It is highly valued to be theologically clear and distinct
in one’s communication of the Christian message, but only on the central issues. In what he
describes as theology at the fringes, some degree of vagueness and indistinctness is equally
appreciated. Holm mentions the works of Jesus and the call to follow Jesus as examples of
231
It is not self-evident how to translate the Norwegian word “tydelig”. It covers the English words “clarity”,
“distinctness”, and “plainness”, but also an attitude of being frank and direct.
106
central theological themes that call for clarity. The distinctness on central issues allows for an
appreciated blurriness on less central issues – important in order to remain trustworthy as an
ecumenical organization. “From time to time there are discussions about theology in the
organization. Some people would like more black and white answers. We believe it is
important to balance what is explicitly expressed with acknowledging that people are different
and have different opinions,” he says.
Could this value of clarity, and the practice of theological discernment, possibly
explain the gap in the use of discipleship on the ground and in the documents? For this to be
the case we would have to presume that discipleship is understood to be a remote theological
concept at the fringes, not worth being clear about. We would have to reject this attempt at
explanation as well. Holm repeats several times during the interview that discipleship in fact
is among the central theological ideas in KRIK. Discipleship is not left out because it belongs
to the theological fringes. Plenty of other theological ideas have found their way to the
documents. In order to understand why discipleship is dismissed here, we have to search
elsewhere.
First we sought an explanation in the practice of discerning freedom in leadership,
then we asked for an explanation in the practice of discerning clarity in theology. Neither
gave satisfactory answers. A third discerning practice popped up at different stages in the
interview. It occurred when Holm talked about situational awareness, target groups,
marketing, and about inclusive attitudes towards strangers, etc. A certain discerning practice
in relation to linguistic instinct started to show:
We can speak about “disciple” on leadership days in connection to the Arena festival, because
everyone there are leaders and know Christian language. In meetings for everyone, one has to
explain “disciple” and what it is about. It is impossible to speak about disciple without saying
what it entails and what it means.
The use of discipleship vocabulary seemed necessary and even helpful for insiders, but
equally irrelevant for outsiders. Holm mentions two target groups where discipleship
vocabulary is of little use: non-Christian youths, on the one hand, and athletes and officials
from sports on the other. For KRIK it is of the utmost importance to obtain a high standing in
both groups:
We are probably more into branding than most organizations (…) It is kind of paradoxical to
be engaged in branding when the purpose is to preach a gospel where image is not important.
But this is the way we communicate, the way to reach people. This is the way society and
people have learned to communicate, so we have to do speak this language.
107
The general opinion in society and possibly among youths, is according to Holm, that
discipleship is easily associated with being a hardcore Christian and slightly extreme. Even
Christians experience discipleship to be elitist, he claims. As long as discipleship and being
Christian are synonyms, we stick to talking about Christian life when wanting to
communicate outside their own organization. Then it is more important, and fully possible, he
claims, to speak about discipleship and following Jesus in universal and understandable
language.
I think in KRIK we see an example of an organization where communication is taken
seriously. This has led to linguistic awareness and a separation of languages; one for internal
use, and one for external use. To some extent the strategy seems to have succeeded. No other
organization in Norway could probably parallel the credibility KRIK has in secular youthculture or in the sporting world. KRIK could be viewed as a successful example of how
linguistic instinct plays a part in relation to discipleship.
3.3
A sign of self-exaltation (Norges unge katolikker)
I think the danger is that we make too much out of it [discipleship]. We all have assignments.
We should not talk about ourselves as if we were especially chosen by God to be disciples and
think we are better than anyone else.
In the interview with Kristine Gran Martinsen, the executive of Norges unge katolikker, I
adopted a somewhat alternative strategy of interviewing. Instead of me forcing discipleship in
to the conversation, I let her have the initiative and bring the subject to the table. Like the rest
of the informants, she was informed in the beginning of the interview, as well as in a written
statement prior to the interview, that discipleship would be my primary area of interest.
Instead I introduced a number of relevant subjects that, in my mind, could be related to
discipleship in a Roman Catholic setting: organizational status and strategy, visions as
executive, doctrinal loyalty and democratic practice, sources of inspiration, Catholic identity,
celebration of mass, world youth day, modern worship (including Hillsong and Chris Tomlin),
the unity of faith/fellowship/action, caritative work, monastic spirituality, prayer by the hour,
spiritual direction, honorary members, role models, training and follow-up programs of
leaders etc. None of these subjects were for her opportunities to speak about discipleship.
I started to suspect that the reason was more fundamental. According to the timer on
the Dictaphone, I threw in the towel and popped the question 52 minutes into the interview:
108
Q:
Would it be natural in Norges unge katolikker to speak about discipleship?
KGM: This is not something we are used to talking about. I have actually not heard about it
this way before I read your letter. But I guess in some ways this is just to put new
words on something we already do, to put in words that God calls us to something,
that everyone has an assignment, a calling one can choose to follow. But it
[discipleship] is not a word we or I use an awful lot. But I believe we all have
assignments here in this life, and that is something we talk a lot about. We must dare
to say “yes”, and to find the strength to say “yes” to the assignments. And that is
perhaps what being a disciple is about.
Gran Martinsen clearly avoids discipleship vocabulary for different reasons than her
colleagues in both Changemaker and KRIK. She is an advocate of a clear Christian identity
and is not afraid of Christian insider lingo. She is clear about the urgency to respond to God’s
calling. I did not have to wait long to hear her argument:
KGM: We talk about being a disciple, but we don’t use the word directly about ourselves. We
talk more about being called by God and that we all have assignments. We talk about
saying “yes”, but we don’t use such a high word about ourselves, about me being a
disciple?
Q:
Do you see it as a high word?
KGM: That is just my personal opinion, but yes. It most definitely is. It [Disciple] is
something we work at becoming. That is at least how I would have put it, I work hard
at being a disciple, but I can never say that I am a disciple.
To her, discipleship is an honorary title we at best can hope for in the future. It is a
title that can only be ascribed to us, not a title we can claim. Because it is a high word and an
honorary title it is so to speak saved for later. To be called a disciple in this life, or even worse,
to call oneself by that name is impudent, self-exalting, and a sign of arrogance. Implicit in this,
is the fundamental view of equality among all members of the church:
KGM: I don’t know if this is what most people think about it [being a disciple]. But
absolutely everybody can be disciples and can choose to follow Jesus. You don’t need
an education in discipleship in order to follow Jesus. That is possible to do on all
levels, in a number of different ways, with the gifts God has given us in life.
Q:
So why should we constrain ourselves from using this word?
KGM: Well, if it becomes like, that someone is chosen to be it [a disciple], that one becomes
something special, and in a way better than others, then it is wrong. But if we just say,
like I talked about earlier, that disciples are role models for us, because they were
someone that said “yes”, then it is OK. Everyone is supposed to be disciples. (…) To
take a more active stance and to say “yes I want to be a disciple” is positive, as long as
it doesn’t become like: “I am better than others”-attitude.
From this it is clear that Gran Martinsen has a double understanding of discipleship: In
one perspective, all Christians are disciples. (The disciples of the Gospels were for her role
109
models of faith.) In another perspective, “disciple” is a description for the ultimate ideal, and
unattainable for everyone. This was confirmed when I introduced her to the one reference of
discipleship in the official documents and Catholic theologians post-Vatican II that elaborate
on discipleship.232
I feel that here it becomes us being disciples. This is far better than saying I. (…)
We absolutely have the thought that we are all disciples in the congregation. That we all in a
way have our assignments, and that everybody has chosen according to following Jesus, and
that everyone can choose to follow him. We absolutely have that thought; we just don’t use
the word.
Perhaps we even use it more than I am aware of, but then in the sense that we are pupils not
that we are chosen and stand out. We could never have had disciple-courses or what you
called it. We could never use it to call attention to ourselves, but more as a word about having
been appointed an assignment, and that we have one to follow.
It is not hard to be sympathetic to the arguments of Kristine Gran Martinsen. She
pinpoints an ambiguity in discipleship that goes to the core of Christian faith and challenges
Christian humility. The use of discipleship vocabulary is in some cases torn apart in the
tension between an inclusive description of all believers and an exclusive description of the
few.233
3.4
An sign of past times (Norges KFUK-KFUM)
The use of such a word [disciple] calls for careful consideration. Entering an average
Norwegian school by stating “I am a disciple”, one should be aware of what that could do.
Our choices of words affect what type of dialogue we are able to establish.
Similar to several of the other informants, Adelheid Firing Hvambsal saw her initial role in
Norges KFUK-KFUM as an agent of change. In the interview she shared how people of good
intentions in her first days in office had encouraged her to take on the role of inspirer. She had
on the contrary soon found the organization to be in a state that called for more “responsible
measures of leadership,” she said. “Telling the truth about the situation we were in became
important for us. But we did so with a strategy. We did not want the changes we were
initiating to create disheartenment throughout the organization.” This process of turning the
232
See 2.2.1
Just for the record: In the last couple of years there are signs indicating a shift towards a more frequent use of
discipleship vocabulary in Norges unge katolikker. The biannual report for 2011/12 alone uses discipleship
vocabulary on five occasions. Norges unge katolikker, “Årsrapport 2011-2012” (2012). World Youth Day 2013
in Rio de Janeiro also centered on the theme “Go and make disciples of all nations (Mt 28,19)”.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Youth_Day_2013
233
110
organization around became a reoccurring reference point in the interview. Later, we will hear
from other organizations in a similar situation where discipleship vocabulary has become
instrumental for such a turn-around process. This is however not the case in Norges KFUKKFUM. As a matter of fact, theology as a whole has only played a supporting role in the
operation. The changes have gone along other lines, identified by Firing Hvambsal as “three
pillars”.
The first pillar is to ensure that values and ideology of the organization was presented
in understandable language and a manner meaningful for youths. As with all reformulations,
the content is never left untouched. For Firing Hvambsal it is important to address the
challenges created in a multi-religious society. This involves a new ecumenical as well as
interreligious openness. According to Firing Hvambsal, Norges KFUK-KFUM has the
ambition to remain “The youth ministry of the Church of Norway”. At the same time, forces
in Norges KFUK-KFUM want a more inter-religious profile.
To ensure that the programs of the organization reflect the real needs of children and
youth is a second pillar. This also includes a deeper and renewed understanding of what it is
to be marginalized today, and who the marginalized are. The fight against poverty and for
peace is to be stepped up, in and out of Norway.
A third pillar is assigned from the Board and national meeting: to bring the
administration of human and economic resources to a healthy state. Organizational democracy,
understood as securing youth empowerment, has been strengthened. New systems for
following up local groups are established. I believe the three pillars are important for
understanding discipleship in Norges KFUK-KFUM.
The historical disciples of Jesus were Firing Hvambsal’s first association with
discipleship when asked in the interview. She admitted she has never been in contact with
groups or settings where discipleship was part of the working language, and is somewhat
unfamiliar talking about it. She finds “the disciples” (of Jesus) to be “fascinating individuals,
and exciting to explore as human beings and role models”. In her opinion they represent the
kind of people everyone else passes by – representatives of the marginalized. She sees this as
a challenge for us not to pass by those to whom Jesus would have attended.
Firing Hvambsal also reflects on issues that she considers make discipleship
vocabulary unsuited in her own organization. The lack of communicability, the first pillar, is
one. “A side of this [discipleship] is the ever-impending danger of isolating oneself from the
everyday language in society.” She thinks the more a language is distant from the language of
111
average Norwegian youths, the greater the distance for the entire organization. Discipleship,
in her mind, represents the kind of vocabulary one should know why and when to use. She
believes it is far more understandable for a youth to be challenged on “how would you
steward your life and your relations?” rather than “how would you be a disciple of Jesus?”
She compares discipleship with archaic diagnoses in the field of medicine, outdated by
changes in society. “Mentally challenged people were once called idiots. To convincingly
reintroduce such language today one has to be over-the-top clever. I think the social
development on this point is irreversible.” She suggests a broad survey on public talk, and
predicts that a majority would think of discipleship vocabulary as a historically obsolete
terminology.
I asked Firing Hvambsal about the Paris basis from 1855 where discipleship
vocabulary actually is used. “The Paris basis is a cornerstone that belongs to another time, and
lives its own life,” she answered. “The founding fathers saw a social need and decay among
students, and started something as a counterweight. The challenge from the Paris basis is not
to extend a certain language but to look for the needs and the decay in our time, especially the
needs that the public oversees.” In this respect discipleship vocabulary contradicts pillar
number two, an open eye towards new groups of marginalized.
I also asked her to give her thoughts on why some organizations still would consider
using discipleship language:
I believe it [discipleship vocabulary] could mark an expansion, a placing of a person’s life into
a wider context. By having the identity of a disciple one takes part in an assignment and a
mission that exceeds oneself. I guess “disciple” as a headline over a person’s life represents a
considerable counterweight to individualism and being responsible only for your own
happiness.
[I think] it is about wanting to give young people a personal agenda and expanding the goals
for their lives, it’s about expanding their life assignments, but perhaps also to give them a
wider reach for how to steward the resources they self inhabit and have in their surroundings.
So that is one thing. In that sense it has considerable and appropriate counterweight to (the
message) “love yourself”.”
What is my Christian life, call it whatever, what is my mission?; and what is our faith, our
mission, and our understanding of it? If we really want to prevent individualism we have to
start talking in we-formats and not just in I-formats. (…) To use the word disciple [about
someone] is to define them as individuals, and I believe just that leads to individualism.
I will come back to this quote later. Here she picks up on several central issues.
Interpreting one’s life as a disciple could function as counterweight to individualism. She
does however see it as a confirmation of a kind of individualism she does not want. And just
112
that contradicts some of the purpose with the third and final pillar in Firing Hvambsal’s
reform of the organization. To her discipleship is primarily an anachronism.
3.5
A sign of power issues (Trosopplæringen)
Discipleship represents more of a strategic and pedagogical dilemma,
than a theological one.
Paul Erik Wirgenes, executive of Trosopplæringen, underlined three overarching perspectives
to the understanding of Trosopplæringen. His first perspective was a broad and inclusive
ecclesial self-understanding following that of being a folk church. The objective of
Trosopplæringen is not to be a fellowship for some, but to offer Christian education for all
baptized – in Norway about two-thirds of the population between the ages of 0 and 18
years.234 Wirgenes underlined repeatedly the importance of the work various Christian groups,
clubs and faith-collectives do – and insisted on the potential in collaboration with other
organizations. Still, the heart of Trosopplæringen is found in a wide and inclusive folk-church
perspective on Christian education – for all baptized.
The second sweeping perspective added by Wirgenes was an understanding of
learning in Church as something far greater than traditional transmission of a cognitive
content from a teacher to a pupil. Learning is not a result of teaching, but what follows from
sharing and participating. Learning takes a starting point in God and God’s love, not in
people’s attitude to him, and centers on mutual practices and a shared identity.
The third, and equally important core perspective is the precedence of the child.
According to Wirgenes, child theology has influenced Trosopplæringen considerably more
than, for instance, youth ministry research has done. This is again connected to the first
perspective. While youth ministry in Norway, and internationally, to a large extent has been
developed in (parachurch) organizations and in the context of the Free Churches, child
theology has had its advocates and suppliers in broader layers of the church. This way,
Trosopplæringen has contributed to a heightening of the status and role of children. Old
pedagogical hierarchies and power structures are challenged. The child is in a radical way
interpreted as the exemplary believer.
According to Wirgenes, all these perspectives disturb and challenge the use of
discipleship vocabulary in Trosopplæringen: (a) A traditional understanding of discipleship
234
http://www.kirken.no/?event=doLink&famID=1958 (October 2, 2013).
113
focuses upon the narrow group of believers, not a wide body of all baptized; (b) it tends to
uphold a hierarchy favoring the mature and old over the young learner in a traditional rabbidisciple relationship; and (c) it tends to focus upon the activity of the teacher, not on the
responsibility of everyone to learn.
In every interview I was at some time amazed or puzzled, but never quite to the extent
of this interview. I knew in advance that Wirgenes represented an organization with moderate
frequency in the use of discipleship vocabulary. I also knew that the newly adopted Plan for
Christian Education represented a shift away from discipleship vocabulary.235 Still, and this is
the surprise: in the interview he acted as a warm advocate for a biblical concept of
discipleship. Wirgenes was beyond question the one informant that used the New Testament
most in his argumentation. Repeatedly he argued – with the Gospel in hand – for the beauty of
the discipleship he found there:
•
•
•
•
Several times he mentioned that it was not the empowered and wealthy ones that were
exemplary in the discipleship of Jesus. This seat was reserved for “the least” and
especially the children. These were the representative types in Jesus’ discipleship. He
drew on several passages from the Gospel of Luke to underpin this point.
He argued with the disciple text in Matthew 28 that the church of Christ by nature is a
movement in motion. The description of the church is “you who wander about”. “All
who follow Jesus,” he said, “are wanderers”. He interpreted the “Go!” of the Great
Commission as a call to holy restlessness in the church. “The church of Christ can
never withdraw, in the meaning of being passive side spectators. The church is by
nature some of God’s movement in the world.”
He argued that a biblical understanding of discipleship is an inclusive description of
identity, relating to the Triune God, and not only Jesus Christ. This makes discipleship
a wide metaphor for all Christian life. “To be a disciple of Jesus describes the entire
life and relationship to God as creator, savior, and restorer. (…) Discipleship is not
only related to Jesus’ death and resurrection, but relates the entire abundance of God
in the Bible to the entire fullness of human identity.”
He argued that Jesus had reinterpreted the servant-master relationship in a radical new
way: being a master who washed his disciples’ feet, and in urging them to serve as
him.
Wirgenes’ convincing arguments for the beauty of biblical discipleship made me
challenge his reservation about the use of discipleship vocabulary in his organization. It soon
became clear that for him there exists a great divide between the understanding of discipleship
in the Gospels and the understanding of discipleship in church tradition. In the New
235
See 2.2.2. The new plan replaced several plans for children and youth ministry in the Church of Norway. In
the now outdated Plan for Confirmation discipleship-pedagogy was the central educational concept. The use of
discipleship vocabulary was high. Kirkerådet, Håndbok til Plan for konfirmasjonstiden i Den norske kirke.
114
Testament he found an appealing, wide and inclusive understanding of discipleship, while in
church – quite the opposite. The problem was what it had become. For him, the vocabulary
was beyond repair. It would simply be too demanding to rehabilitate discipleship for use in a
folk church setting. The connotations were too many and too narrow. But the totality of the
beauty of discipleship, and this is interesting, was possible to convey in inclusive and
understandable language.
For Wirgenes discipleship has been given attributes that make discipleship vocabulary
useless. These are first and foremost related to narrow forms of church/faith communities,
hierarchical forms of transmission and teaching, and children’s submission to adults. These
are all in one way or another issues of power.
3.6
A sign worn out (Substans)
There is nothing wrong with discipleship in itself. But sometimes you just have to stop using a word
because it has lost its power. It has been used too much. The reason we don’t speak about discipleship
is simply because all Christians do, although no one seems to agree on what it means.
Why should we bring along yet one more understanding of what discipleship really means?
I earlier called the moderate use of discipleship vocabulary in the official documents of
Substans a surprise (2.2.2). In light of Substans’ strong affiliation with and influence from the
Re-Imagine movement and the Korsvei movement, I would have expected otherwise –
discipleship being an important element in these organizations. Stian Kilde Aarebrot
confirmed the strong relation to both these organizations. When he told about the beginnings
of Substans he calls it “an attempt at making a Norwegian Re-Imagine blueprint”. When he
first discovered Korsvei he describes his reaction as “finding a long lost twin sibling”.
“Korsvei is slightly more academic in its approach to theology, but all in all we are the same,”
Kilde Aarebrot reflects. I was interested to know Kilde Aarebrot’s views on this resemblance
and affiliation. What constitutes it, if not discipleship? Kilde Aarebrot answered by telling the
story of Substans.
As an organization Substans emerged as an offspring of Sub-Church – an alternative
congregation in downtown Oslo. People from various urban subcultures are drawn into this
church, hence the name. Despite an “unchurchy” atmosphere and style, Sub-Church’s
theology has, according to Kilde Aarebrot, always been fairly traditional. At one point,
however, a theological shift took place in Sub-Church; it became more than an alternative
115
looking congregation. Kilde Aarebrot links this shift to the rediscovery of Jesus’ teaching on
the Kingdom of God and a renewed attention towards Jesus as teacher.
The theology of Sub-Church started to change back in 2006/7. Up to that point we had
expressed our faith in very traditional ways. But we rediscovered the teaching of Jesus on the
Kingdom of God. This led us to refocus on the social-ethical side of faith. The same shift has
taken place across many denominations and into the mainstream church. Hillsong and Matt
Redman, for instance, now work with modern-day slavery. For us it has always been
important to have a foot in different kinds of church life, but this shift has linked us to new
and different movements and people.
About at the same time, Substans started to approach and talk about Jesus as teacher.
According to Kilde Aarebrot, the focus in the western church has always been on Jesus as
savior. From his perspective, a one-sided focus on Jesus as savior paves the way for “a
misunderstanding of grace”. In turn, this misunderstanding of grace creates an “apathetic type
of Christian practice” – “because there is grace for everything”. The focus on Jesus as teacher,
however, made Substans redirect their attention towards social ethics issues and practices.
Both these theological developments made Substans attend to social ethics and
Christian practices – which is a heart and passion they share with Re-Imagine and Korsvei.
Today, simple living, generosity, prayer, etc. are seen as skills that can be mastered through
practice. The focus upon practices and training is also reflected in the language of spiritual
formation and athletic metaphors. Ascetism and Activism denotes the two main emphases of
the movement. An even more striking mark of Substans is the use of unfamiliar, often
Eastern-inspired, words. Kilde Aarebrot explains that they never have been afraid of outdated,
strange or alternative terms. The use of “Dojo”, for instance, is no coincidence. That the
Eastern-inspired language seems strange to some is only an advantage. For youth, moreover,
Japanese and Eastern cultures are popular. Bringing an Eastern-inspired language into church
is a deliberate move. In it Substans has found a vocabulary that creates the wanted curiosity. It
was in relation to my probing on this that Kilde Aarebrot first thematized discipleship in the
interview.
Q:
Let’s talk a bit about the Jesus-dojo, which I find very interesting. My first association
goes to the Karate Kid movies. Is it this kind of apprenticeship you have in mind?
SKA: Yeah, in a way we picture ourselves as apprentices. Disciples are apprentices, and we
often talk about the relationship Jesus had to his disciples. We also talk about the fact
that Jesus and his disciples belong in an Eastern tradition. The Silk Road went straight
through their land. I see many cultural similarities; especially you can see the
resemblance in the disciple/master relationship. It is just like the Buddhist inspired
martial arts and meditation schools. We have [in the Jesus story] a lot of the same
roles. Jesus sat [teaching], the setting was not the classroom, it happened in everyday
116
life, “Let me show you how it’s done and you do after me”. It was very like this. We
focus a lot on that.
In my mind everything is prepared for an extensive use of discipleship in Substans:
their affiliation with discipleship movements, their recognition of the Kingdom of God and
Jesus as teacher as important New Testament themes, their emphasis on practice, and their
preference for an Eastern apprenticeship tradition which they link to the relationship of Jesus
and his disciples. Yet, Substans discern otherwise.
Q:
I did not find a lot of talk about discipleship in your documents. Why?
SKA: I think this is because we feel discipleship as a word has been used up. It can denote
incredibly many things. I do not necessarily regard the Disciple Training Schools of
YWAM for instance as training disciples. The discipleship they talk about is not quite
the same as the discipleship we practice.
It is nothing wrong with discipleship in itself, but sometimes you just have to stop
using a word because it has lost its power, it has been used too much. The reason we
don’t speak about discipleship is simply because all Christians speak about
discipleship, although no one seems to agree on what it means. Why should we bring
along yet another understanding of what discipleship really means? We become
everything but focused and edgy by saying, “We want to make disciples”.
Because everyone uses it and people attach different contents to what it implies, the
original meaning disappears and drowns in all the quasi-meanings. But I do not write
off the possibility of the word getting its renaissance in twenty to thirty years’ time, if
it has the time to rest for a bit and then gets picked up again and rediscovered it can
become a really important term. But I believe there are quite a few words we need to
take a break from.
Q:
A premature analysis of what you are saying would be that Substans is an attempt at
rediscovering and vitalizing discipleship, just using other words… How would you
feel about such a description?
SKA: I think that is to the point. I have on several occasions said that what we do in
Substans is in a way the least innovative thing in years. We try to pick up some things
that were invented centuries ago. We give it a fresh wrapping, find some new words,
and find some new expressions and forms.
In the first six interviews (all representing low- and moderate-frequency
organizations) I found quite a lot of skepticism towards the use of discipleship vocabulary. It
is worth noting that for several of the informants the skepticism is directed towards what
discipleship has become, not discipleship itself. The vocabulary is in their mind connected to
unfortunate present day connotations. Discipleship as an idea or concept seems to exist
independently of the language it is framed in. For most informants this idea could be
preserved and communicated without the use of the vocabulary. This is at least the case in
Substans. The problem here is not the content of discipleship, but the many contents of
117
discipleship. For them, to promote discipleship language would be just to add yet another
variant in the pool of variants.
Interesting to note, while several informants point towards the problems of
communicating discipleship outside church, several organizations also point towards the
uselessness of discipleship in church and Christian theology. Discipleship vocabulary
malfunctions because of unfortunate usages in the church. Both Trosopplæringen and
Substans elaborate their strategic theology as a “discipleship in other words”.
3.7
A sign of a multiplication strategy (Laget)
Discipleship is about producing life together. Taking a few steps together.
Talking together after- and in-between sermons.
Challenging each other to go deeper with God.
We now attend to the four organizations with the most extensive use of discipleship
vocabulary in the sample, starting with Laget. In the official documents of Laget we found
that a shift had occurred from a low to a high use of discipleship vocabulary. This shift was
connected to a shift in strategy aimed at transforming an organization in decline into a vital
movement. Executive Tor Erling Fagermoen underlined the importance of disciple-making
for this to happen:
We do not wish to remain an organization dependent on employees. We want to disciple the
young so they go to their fellow students and take the initiative for prayer, evangelizing, or
protest rallies against racism for that matter. Not because they are instructed to, but because it
comes from within, because a fire is started. That is my dream. I think we see it already.
When asked to elaborate, Fagermoen started to talk about the Norwegian context: “We
like to think of ourselves as a Christian country, and in one way we are – as opposed to being
a Muslim country for instance. But we need to renew our understanding of [of Christian] for
those wanting to be ‘active’ and ‘practicing’ etc.,” he argues. For this reason Fagermoen
connects discipleship to faith. For him discipleship starts with a personal commitment of faith
as well as elaborating the practical side of faith. This includes growth, maturation and
sanctification. He explained his project as an attempt to clear a fresh space between folkchurch Christianity and prayer-house Christianity. In his mind the folk church has
traditionally been too occupied with sacraments and the celebration of mass. The prayer
houses have been equally busy in Bible exposition and preaching – “as if this is where life
takes place”. For him, both forms of Christianity share a weakness when it comes to
118
relationships and practice in between gatherings. This is where he envisioned a new and
seemingly undeveloped space for discipleship:
Discipleship is about producing life together. Take some steps together. Talk together after
and in-between sermons. Challenging each other to go deeper with God.
We want to do something with this. It makes me ambitious on Laget’s behalf. I believe we
will find our role here. It will give us an edge that becomes very attractive and fruitful that will
bring a lot of life and growth and power to church and society. I strongly believe this.
Fagermoen is already initiating a sweeping reorganization of Laget, towards smaller
groups with a higher level of relational commitment. This even has implications for how
employees spend their working hours. “Twenty years ago the main strategy for a worker was
to visit school classes and prepare church services. In the future employees will follow up just
a few youths, and challenge them to a sincere walk with Jesus. This is discipleship,” he says.
He relates this development as somewhat in response to the opposite emphasis in
Trosopplæringen. In his understanding, this reform has made many churches and
organizations focus on large activities for the masses (Norw. breddetiltak). Fagermoen is of
course not against big events, but calls for a more regular alternative for the few: “for those
who want to go deeper”.
Our aim is not to hide or to disappear. But we need to take the risk of giving just a few
[people] solid foundations and to offer more than activities. (…). A lot of organization and
churches work towards the many, but we don’t really know what happens when we thin
ourselves out.
I envision the role of Laget to be a movement discipling youth on a large scale, but in the
beginning, on a small scale, making them grounded Christians. That is a totally different
paradigm than being an organization with impressive programs, speeches and books.
We want to become the best at asking, “How are things in your life right now?”
Fagermoen has even reorganized his own job. He is less at the office and more out in
the field together with young people. But most importantly, he has started working on his own
Christian life and tries to deepen his own “disciple practice”. For this he joins the same kind
of group that everybody else in Laget is invited to. This particular group consists of three
people, one is in his twenties, one in his thirties, and Fagermoen will soon be in his forties.
They meet once a week and use Greg Ogden’s books as curriculum.236 The plan is that every
group will multiply later. After one year each participant is to start a new group with new
people.
236
Greg Ogden, Discipleship essentials: A guide to building your life in Christ (Downers Grove, IL: IVP
Connect, 2007); Greg Ogden, Transforming discipleship: Making disciples a few at a time (Downers Grove, IL:
IVP Books, 2003).
119
After two years there will be 9 groups, after three years, 27 groups. After six years, there will
be 60,000 groups or so. (He laughs). This is of course just playing with numbers, in reality not
all groups will multiply, but the idea is great and it comes from slow work with a few.
Discipleship, for Fagermoen, has elements of leadership training, spiritual formation
and the type relationships only experienced in small fellowships.
Spiritual formation is the aim. But I would say discipleship and disciple-making presumes a
relational intentionality where we help each other to formulate goals and take some steps
together. I don’t think you can detach discipleship from this. Then you are back to just the
preaching, or the books, or the podcasts. That would be useful for the cognitive side, but this is
about life to such a degree that it cannot be detached from human beings of flesh and blood.
Discipleship in Laget should be understood against a background of folk-church and
prayer-house Christianity, both low on relationality, and as an attempt to respond to
organizational decline. Discipleship implies small groups with a high level of dedication,
which are set up to bring back student initiative and future growth, possibly exponential
growth.
3.8
A sign of post-revivalism (Misjonsforbundet Ung)
There is a huge difference between how we now think about disciple-making and
how we earlier prayed for revival to be sent from God to sweep our cities.
In Misjonsforbundet Ung, as in Laget, there has been a noticeable increase in the use of
discipleship vocabulary in documents. While the shift in Laget has happen just recently, the
documents seem to indicate that discipleship vocabulary in Misjonsforbundet Ung started to
occur at the turn of the millennium. And contrary to Laget, where the present executive
initiated the shift, it had already taken place in Misjonsforbundet Ung when Anne Margrethe
Ree Sunde entered the position as executive.
Discipleship was established as a word before I started the job. I don’t know if it had been
used a lot prior to that, but this is actually not something we have discussed. (…) We have,
however, discussed other terms. I do believe the employees, the people on the board, and
everyone involved, have very few problems with it. But nobody has actually asked me. I have
not experienced any criticism of the word or problematized it, except from grown-ups saying
they can’t use it. They experience distance.
Discipleship vocabulary in Laget is accompanying a grand strategic turn-around in the
organization. Why the shift took place in Misjonsforbundet Ung seems to have a subtler
explanation. One should note that the story of Misjonsforbundet is a story of revivalism.
Older people especially seem to have this as part of their identity. Generations have passed by
since the last great revival, but the culture is still present. Several times in the interview Ree
120
Sunde expresses frustration that Misjonsforbundet is still stuck in a culture of expecting
revivals.
There is a revival culture in Misjonsforbundet. Great awakenings was the reason
Misjonsforbundet grew a lot, or at least grew a lot in some periods, and it still lives among
adults as a dream or a wishful state to turn back to.
Q:
Still?
Yes, for some. It varies a lot and I only see it in glimpses when I travel around, but for me, not
coming from a revival culture, I take notice of something I am not very used relating to, but
still something I have to respect and consider in order to understand the organization of
Misjonsforbundet. There is a huge difference between how we now think about disciplemaking and how we earlier prayed for revival to be sent from God to sweep our cities. “Living
Faith” [the program] is a lot about creating a sustainable everyday faith for children and youth,
with the home as the arena.
Discipleship, then, in Misjonsforbundet Ung could be understood as the manifestation
of a new organizational culture. Expecting revivals cannot be the only strategy, especially
when God seems to postpone them again and again. One has to take action and create
programs of Christian education based on a more processual aim. “Levende Tro”, the recently
developed program for Christian education, is the ultimate expression of this new line of
thinking. Here, the homes and family are appointed the new arena for creating a sustainable
everyday faith for children and youth.
Simultaneously Ree Sunde told about the work of establishing a discipleship culture in
the congregations. The discipleship-branded artifacts of Misjonsforbundet should be seen as
expressions of the same. Both the logo (the disciple cross) and the Disciple Pulse program are
attempts at stimulating a new organizational culture; still open to, but no longer dependent on,
revivals. In this Ree Sunde has experienced the challenges from the old organizational culture.
One of the problems we come across in the congregations – and this is my critique – I wonder
if Misjonsforbundet has a disciple-culture we can build on. Our first experience with Levende
Tro is that it takes quite a while for adults to understand what we mean by discipleship. It
seems as if they don’t put the same definitions in the same words. […] The congregations vary
a lot, but our experience is that it is hard to understand that disciple-making is not built on
activities but on relations. We imply that in order to be a disciple, you need someone to learn
from. There is a real shortage of those people in the congregations. […] The aim is not that the
congregations should close down their activities, but that they should be able to discern the
activities that build on relations and the activities that build relations. We must see disciplemaking, and not the activities, as the aim.
In order to address this inter-generational confusion concerning the definition of
discipleship, they felt compelled in Misjonsforbundet Ung to create a formal definition of
discipleship: “A disciple follows the word of God in thought and in action”. Ree Sunde
121
approved and repeated this minimalist definition in the interview. At the same time she gave
indications about a heavier load.
First of all, according to Ree Sunde, there is an implied and intended structure to the
areas of commitment in the organization (discipleship, leadership and evangelization).
Through Christian education youths are made disciples, in turn disciples become leaders, and
eventually leaders become missionaries. Discipleship is therefore the first vital stepping stone
and prerequisite for the others. Second, there is a working methodology as to how disciples
are produced. This is to a large extent connected to learning relationships between people at
different stages in life and faith:
AMRS: From what I understand, a disciple always has a relation to a master or a teacher. A
disciple is one who never stops learning. This is why the word disciple is important to
us. (…) Without having this relationship established, it is not guaranteed that the faith
is anchored properly.
Q:
Are you referring to the relationship with Jesus?
AMRS: Well, it is actually a double relationship. You have the disciple-teacher or disciplemaker in human body, so to say, in the congregation, who then helps to establish a
disciple-relation to Jesus. We don’t use the word disciple-maker much, but we use the
word spiritual leader. […] Many people fear the word “spiritual”, they think that it is
about charisma, they do not feel sufficiently spiritual, or something they cannot or will
not be. But we define every faith educator as a spiritual leader the same way a football
coach instructs the team about rules, directions and alternatives. [Discipleship
happens] in the interplay between God and one or more adult persons. We have
chosen the term “spiritual leader” instead of “faith educator” because we experience
this term taken or used. And maybe because we have an implied goal of making
spirituality safe, to expand the understanding, that it’s not about charismatics and
feelings, but about learning to know God and following his words.
I probed several times, from several angles on the topic of this double relationship in
connection to discipleship. When asked about the youth–leader relationship the major
problem she saw was the problem of recruiting enough adults who understood what
discipleship and disciple-making implied.
3.9
A sign of a relational implementation of faith (Ungdom i Oppdrag)
The basis of discipleship is a relational experience, it’s not a one-man show, it takes place in
the dynamics with others. It is about implementation of knowledge.
Andreas Nordli, executive of Ungdom i Oppdrag, presented his organization as a band of
friends working together to fulfill the Great Commission with clear and outspoken aims but
without the need for formalized strategies. Ungdom i Oppdrag is not primarily a youth
122
organization, but a missionary organization – a missionary organization with urgency, I would
add. “Holy restlessness is pushing us all the time, we can never be satisfied, the gospel must
[go] out and forward”, was one way Nordli expressed this in the interview.
We experience God reminding us about two new words: partnering and pioneering. Pioneering
is about doing new things in new ways. Our focus is to establish new ministries in Europe. As
of today we have eleven new pioneer ministries in Europe. When it comes to Partnering, in
order to reach the goals of the Kingdom of God, and not our own, we now do much of our
work in collaboration with other organizations.
It is against this backdrop and in this context I understand their understanding of
discipleship. A good place to start is by unpacking the DTS concept. In the documents the
overwhelming majority of references to discipleship were in the abbreviated form: “DTS”.
There are no formal members in Ungdom i Oppdrag, but Nordli describes two kinds of
“UiOers”: those who perceive themselves as UiOers and those who actually work in the
organization. Most people in the former group have attended a DTS. For the latter group, DTS
is a prerequisite.
All local DTSs have 80% of their curriculum in common. Fifty hours of theory on a
weekly basis for twelve consecutive weeks is followed by an outreach – a practice period of
eight weeks in a foreign culture. Evangelization in teams with a clearly defined leadership is
the main ingredient. Every DTS around the world reports to Ungdom i Oppdrag’s private
university, University of the Nations (UotN). Curriculum and teachers are approved prior to
the course, and teachers have to report on achievements according to certain standards within
five days upon completion. A DTS student acquires credits equivalent to half a year of a
Masters degree at UotN.
The aim of DTS is to get to know God, and to learn how to make him known. Nordli
pinpoints the four learning objectives of a DTS student as follows: (a) to obtain a deep and
personal experience of God, (b) to receive a thorough introduction to apologetic practice, (c)
to lead a person to Christ, and (d) to pioneer a new ministry. According to Nordli, DTS is not
first of all leadership training, but training in becoming a disciple; or more correctly, it is a
starting point for the life-long process of discipleship.
When DTS was introduced over thirty years ago, it represented something quite new
and different. Today, most Bible schools, at least in Norway, have adopted many of its main
principles, Nordli claims, especially in the focus on experience, the mission trip with outreach,
and a personal mentor.
123
At DTS every student has a personal mentor whom he or she will meet once a week,
and who is available around the clock. In other words, at a DTS you have a system of very
close follow-up and accountability – which is often referred to as “disciple-making”. A close
relation to the mentor is valued as one of the greater success factors of DTS. In the words of
Nordli: “one is not left alone in the room to study”.
Q:
To meet a mentor once a week could sound a bit frequent…
AN:
Not when you walk through life together. Discipleship is not only about our
spirituality, you see. That’s only a part of it. It’s about all of life. We don’t divide life
into a secular part that God does not care about and a spiritual part that he cares about.
Calvin once said that we work on Mondays as if God watched us. Discipleship is not
only about prayer and Bible reading; it’s about how we meet each other. It’s about
sharing life. Being together on a journey – being fellow travelers.
Q:
Have you experienced that people in these relationships collide?
AN:
We are people, not angels. It happens, but it does not happen all the time. When you
have been around for a while, it is not all that surprising when it happens. I am
actually more worried when there is no conflict than when there is.
Q:
Why?
AN:
Because people make mistakes, say things they didn’t intend, and people get hurt. But
that’s life. I think of conflict as healthy – no, conflict is not healthy. But a good
disagreement is healthy.
Q:
OK?
AN:
We have this saying: “to create teachable moments”. Everything that happens could be
turned into something good. One can learn from any situation. By asking what to learn,
we create teachable moments.
Nordli contrasts disciple-making to traditional Christian education. He sees it as more
of a personal approach to the application and implementation of cognitive knowledge.
Christian education should not be about the transmission of cognitive information. To him it
is not “true knowledge” before it is “implemented in lived lives”. This is discipleship.
This is also why he primarily sees discipleship as a relational enterprise of personal
accountability. “Disciple-making does not happen [when] preaching from a platform or by
teaching a DTS. It can, however, happen when being together with students over lunch or
when sharing a dinner.” Dialogue he sees as a condition for disciple-making, in the synergy
between people, primarily in relations.
124
Towards the end of our conversation, Nordli makes an interesting distinction between
the Gospel of the cross and the Gospel of the kingdom. This resembles what Kilde Aarebrot
from Substans talked about as a distinction between Jesus as teacher and Jesus as savior.
The cross, the atonement and God’s reconciliation with the world is at the center of the Gospel,
but this is not the entire Gospel. The Gospel of the kingdom is everything that follows from it.
Interestingly, Nordli connects discipleship to this idea of the Gospel of the kingdom. It
is about having Jesus as Lord in all aspects of life, not only what has to do with salvation.
“Being Christian and being a disciple are synonyms,” he says, “but in our Christian tradition
they are not.” For Nordli discipleship, then, is the code a process of letting God’s rule
influence all areas in life.
The preliminary inference I suggested from the official documents, that discipleship
was about to disappear and only remain present in headlines and abbreviations, was evidently
premature. Discipleship still at the very heart of Ungdom i Oppdrag, and discipleship
vocabulary is used in relation to mentoring relationships and the implementing process where
cognitive knowledge about God is transformed and translated into everyday Lordship.
3.10
A sign of the bridging of the social and spiritual (Korsvei)
In Korsvei discipleship has right from the beginning been about finding a connection between
the spiritual and the mundane, between the theological and the social, between the inside and
the outside. And that is what we have called discipleship.
At the beginning of the interview, the executive Knut Grønvik pointed out the three elements
he understands as the core of Korsvei: (a) the discipleship question, (b) the objects clause and
(c) the four road-signs. To him, these are not only central values; “They are Korsvei”. And
the three are largely connected, he claims.
What started as a headline for a festival has followed the movement ever since, and is
today most commonly referred to as the basis question or the discipleship question:
The intention was never to start a movement, but to make one single festival. The headline for
the first festival in 1985 was formulated as a question: “What does it imply/entail to be a
disciple of Jesus Christ at the end of the twentieth century?” The 350 people that showed up
got to hear the Christian socialist Geir Gundersen have three Bible classes about the Father,
the Son and the Holy Spirit. From a marketing perspective, it was not very exciting.
It is fairly uncommon for an organization to have a question as its point of orientation,
so I followed up with probing. In Grønvik’s view, Korsvei is a place where people are able to
breathe freely. More is achieved when people ask a question in their own lives than when
125
others dictate answers. He also connected the basis question to the many questions in the
Bible: “Where are you?”, “Where is your brother?”, “Whom shall I send?”, etc. When God
approaches human beings it is strikingly often with a question; this way God lets individuals
stand out with what they think, stand for, and experience. Questions are, in his mind,
underrated as sources of faith.
Our vision is to help each other living as disciples, and this is also the reason we have
formulated the vision as a question. When you ask questions you are kept awake, while if you
sit on the answers, you have a tendency to do just that, to sit.
Korsvei saw the light of day in what Grønvik describes as the vacuum following the
1970s. Some people came out of the Jesus-movement and charismatic movements; others had
been involved in social-political movements and the fight for justice. Korsvei was born,
according to Grønvik, out of a strong longing for different aspects to integrate. This is the
background for the first sentence in the object clause: “Korsvei wants to inspire and challenge
people to seek intimate fellowship with Jesus and to unite with him in the fight for life in our
world.” Grønvik elaborates:
After five years we had to organize ourselves more properly and set up a foundation. We had
to formulate an objects clause. We were strongly inspired by Edin Løvås’ twofold definition
of discipleship: (a) a disciple lives in a strong personal relationship with Jesus Christ, and (b) a
disciple identifies with Jesus Christ’s interests in the world.
The founders experienced that this resonated well with what they already had seen at
the festivals. The politically active ones sought a deepening of their faith, and met up for
Jesus meditation etc. The charismatic ones wanted to be challenged in an activist direction. In
this way, discipleship in Korsvei has right from the start implied a connection of the spiritual
and the social, the inside and the outside.
The four road signs is the movement’s preliminary attempt at answering the basis
question. For Grønvik, the link to the objects clause is also evident:
There was some disagreement in the steering committee about how many areas and issues we
would allow ourselves to have opinions about. Some wanted to write “the most ultimate
theological document ever”. I had a break from the committee at the time, but at the last
meeting I attended we agreed that what we needed was some short, simple sentences for
people to remember.
The road signs were there when I returned after four or five years. My only contribution was
to change “Live simple” to “Live simpler”. This way all four road signs described movement:
“seek Jesus Christ”, “build fellowship”, “live simpler”, and “promote justice”. They all point
out a direction. You can never say, “Now I have done this”, but you can always say, “This is
what I am doing”.
126
Grønvik explains that the understanding of discipleship as expressed in the object
clause, the basis question, and the road signs point towards something that was
underdeveloped in the organizations they came from: the use of forensic language. He
describes this language as the trapping of the Gospel in metaphors of the courtroom, while
major parts of the gospel story actually happened while wandering along roads. The juridical
side of the Gospel has infected even the life guidance of the church, being too occupied with
defining in or out. For him, life-guidance is best achieved when a direction is suggested, not
when wrong and right is defined. This is core in his understanding of discipleship, a more
dynamic understanding of the Gospel’s inside and outside, but also a more dynamic
understanding of good deeds. He is skeptical about a sharp division between faith and action.
In our use of discipleship there is a slight critique of a Christian understanding that defines
faith from its outer borders and extreme fringes. We have been eager to define faith from its
center. That is why we have not developed a lot of theological texts in Korsvei. We have been
busy pointing at the center.
During the interview Grønvik returns repeatedly to the Incarnation and the kingdom of
God. There is a direct line, he said, from the incarnation to our engagement in social ethical
issues: The warnings of Jesus about wealth are actual warnings for us today. The wonders and
the nature miracles of Jesus are interpreted as the power of the kingdom of God active in
healing the world. To follow Jesus is contributing in making this world a better place. A book
by the late Bishop Erling Utnem has inspired this view. “We are not to go to heaven, the
kingdom of heaven is coming to us,” is Grønvik’s brief summary of the book.237 Grønvik
points out that immediately after Jesus’ proclamation of kingdom of God, he started recruiting
disciples.
There is a conception among Korsvei people that God’s kingdom being at hand is an
experience we can share. By following Jesus, we can ourselves contribute to drawing God’s
kingdom present, a continuation of the incarnation, so to speak.
In order to link discipleship to a notion of God’s kingdom, I have often said that liberated
zones arose on the planet around Jesus; zones of the kingdom of God. The presence of the
kingdom of God is a presence in both time and space, in my opinion.
To follow Jesus is to draw near to him. This way the forces of God’s kingdom become
tangible in your presence. This is also a way I have imagined discipleship. The church is in the
world in order to be a zone of the kingdom of God. The body of Christ is still in the world.
There is a strong theology of incarnation running all the way through the theology of Korsvei.
From everything that is said about Korsvei this far, one would expect discipleship
vocabulary to be the working language of the whole movement. According to Grønvik, this is
237
Ogden, Discipleship essentials; Ogden, Transforming discipleship.
127
most certainly not the case. He has his doubts that a random visitor to the festival would call
Korsvei a “discipleship movement”, or see any immediate link between discipleship and
Korsvei, for that matter. It is in his view far more likely they would know about the road signs.
He actually insists that they don’t talk an awful lot about discipleship, that it’s not even
important. What is important is to make clear what it is to be a disciple, to follow Jesus.
I know that not everyone finds [discipleship vocabulary] natural. It is a fact that we haven’t
used it a lot and all the time. We can also speak about followship. “What does it entail to
follow Jesus?” I guess we experience this as a question that people find easier to relate to, than
to ask, “What does it entail to be a disciple?”. That’s just my feeling.
But my hope is that the word disciple, and our understanding of it, could be expanded – and
become a term that is not occupied by relatively narrow groups.
In Korsvei I found an organization that has made discipleship its ideological
centerpiece. Its theology of connecting social action and spiritual formation is derived from its
understanding of discipleship. Korsvei has framed a theology of motion for life guidance in
discipleship vocabulary. Simultaneously, the reluctance to use this kind of vocabulary among
their affiliates is so notable, that it very often it is toned down.
3.11
Preliminary summary: Informants’ interpretations of discipleship
This chapter has described the significance of discipleship vocabulary on a strategic level in
each organization by tracing the informants’ underlying assumptions and understandings
individually. Their answers have shown great diversity.
One of the informants said that discipleship represents more of a strategic problem
than a theological one. This seems to be a fitting description for most informants. With one or
two exceptions, most informants have no problem with discipleship – as an imagined
theological concept. There is however a tendency to discern sharply between discipleship as
an idea and the use of discipleship vocabulary. I found this kind of discernment in one form or
another among most informants: They do not seem to have a problem with the theological
concept. Discipleship vocabulary, however, is more troublesome.
The informants from Norges KFUK-KFUM, KRIK, Norges unge katolikker, Substans,
Trosopplæringen, Misjonsforbundet Ung, and Korsvei have all experienced finding
discipleship vocabulary hard to use. This vocabulary evokes so many associations in people
that it does not work well for the purposes of communication.
128
Two informants (from KRIK and Norges KFUK-KFUM) believe this problem
primarily rests with society. Discipleship vocabulary has simply no meaning for people
outside church, they say. And there are some groups in society that it is vital to relate to.
For most informants, however, the communicative problems of discipleship
vocabulary sit among Christians. The real problem is what discipleship has come to represent
for people in church.
•
•
•
•
•
For the informant from Norges unge katolikker discipleship vocabulary crossed the
idea of equality and unity among members of church.
For the informant from Substans the many and diverse interpretations of discipleship
in church had emptied the vocabulary for meaning.
For the informant from Trosopplæringen discipleship vocabulary represented
accumulation of power in outdated hierarchical church structures.
The informant from Misjonsforbundet Ung experienced that adult members in
particular lacked a sufficient understanding of discipleship.
The informant from Korsvei admitted that discipleship vocabulary was unfamiliar and
strange for most attending their festivals.
The informants interpreted their organization’s work as taking part in the Great
Commission and the making of disciples. Many also expressed that they actually contributed
to revitalizing and retrieving true discipleship. But only a minority found the use of
discipleship vocabulary helpful in their context. Hence, most informants expressed the view
that continuous negotiation about when to use, and when not to use, discipleship vocabulary,
was necessary. These findings seem to indicate a need for a closer look at the use of
discipleship vocabulary on a strategic level in these organizations – or what could be called
the pragmatics of discipleship.
129
130
4
PRAGMATICS OF DISCIPLESHIP
In the opening chapter of this thesis I posed the hypothesis that discipleship, when used
strategically in organizations, should be understood and analyzed not only as an educational
and theological concept. The previous chapter confirmed that it is equally important to
understand the discipleship phenomenon as the object of pragmatic negotiation. This includes
taking discipleship seriously as part of a social context and determined by the situation. This
chapter will highlight how different informants adapt discipleship to their situation.
All the organizations in the sample work with young people, but they approach and
understand youth culture and adolescence rather differently. They all operate in the same
small Norwegian culture, yet they understand citizenship, globalization, and secularization –
just to name a few factors – rather differently. The organizations have developed different
organizational cultures, identities and images out of different traditions and have different
organizational objectives and means for their existence. We now re-approach the informants’
statements about discipleship, with a special interest in how the particular understandings of
their situations have shaped and shape their particular uses of discipleship vocabulary on a
strategic organizational level.
For analytical perspective I borrow concepts from semiotic theory, especially the
branch of semiotics most commonly referred to as pragmatics. Pragmatics is the branch of
semiotics that takes context most rigorously into account. Semiotics in the analytical tradition,
following C. S. Peirce, resides within the philosophical tradition of American pragmatism. A
main concern for pragmatism (as for semiotics and pragmatics) is to minimize the gap
between theory and practice – in pragmatics by paying attention to “meaning in situations”.
This is now our focus.
The chapter is organized according to C. W. Morris’ threefold definition of the
pragmatic enterprise: origins, uses, and effects (cf. 1.4.1). In section 4.1 we trace the origins
to the informants’ understanding of discipleship on a strategic level in Norwegian Christian
youth organizations – as it appears in the material. Here we will see how different informants
construct their understanding of discipleship from various sources of inspiration by
connecting to different discourses, distilling sources by pursuing parts of it over others, and
by combining parts of different sources of inspiration. In section 4.2 I recycle the
methodology from the preparatory study of official documents (chapter 2) – only this time
131
with interview-transcripts as material. This syntactic concept analysis of discipleship
vocabulary, as used by the informants in the interviews, will elucidate how morphological
constructions conceal a variety of five rather distinct and unique uses of discipleship. In
section 4.3 I try to listen to the informants and how they describe the assumed effects of
discipleship in their setting.
In other words I am here interested in (a) how the informants’ understanding of
discipleship is shaped by situation, (b) how these understandings shape the uses of
discipleship vocabulary on a strategic level, and (c) how these uses of discipleship vocabulary
are assumed to shape the situation they are in.
The aim of this chapter, then, as for all the three analytical chapters (4, 5, and 6), is to
identify potentially vital points that could help our understanding of discipleship on a strategic
level in Norwegian Christian youth organizations, and ultimately, to improve the use of
discipleship vocabulary in this context.
4.1
Origins: The shaping of discipleship
4.1.1 Connecting to discourses as sources of inspiration
The potential sources for discipleship on a strategic level in Norwegian Christian youth
organizations are simply uncountable. Any interpretation, or set of interpretations, of
discipleship in history could hypothetically have inspired the interpretation of discipleship in
Norwegian youth ministry today. To account fully for every potential source of inspiration is
not only entirely impossible – it is far beyond the scope of this thesis. In the following I will
limit the scope of the presentation to the informants’ own perceptions of origins, simply by
singling out what they identify as sources of inspiration. In some cases they name concrete
persons, movements and books. But more often they connect their understanding of
discipleship to certain discourses framed in discipleship vocabulary. The following could
therefore in some ways resemble a discourse analysis, tracing the roots of a certain
phenomenon to previous discourses.
In the interviews, each informant was, independent of their present understanding of
discipleship, encouraged to describe openly previous affiliations with people, ideologies,
places etc. that might have shaped who they have become. They were all asked about their
previous contact with discipleship movements and environments. Informants, especially those
towards the high end of the discipline-vocabulary frequency spectrum, were in addition asked
more directly about who and what had inspired their specific understanding of discipleship.
132
Their answers resulted in a long list of books, people and movements. By reworking their
answers I have reached a set of nearly a dozen different discourses from where the
discipleship phenomenon on a strategic level in Norwegian Christian youth organizations has
found inspiration.
Some informants connect discipleship to a missional discourse. Those who do have
predominantly met a missional discipleship abroad on conferences and in books. In Norway,
as for the rest of the world, “missional church” has become a hot topic over the last couple of
decades. “Missional” is distinct from “missionary”. While missionary was something the
church did, missional is often perceived as what the church is – a part of the essence or DNA
of the church. It is found in a shared attitude of being sent, not a special activity for some with
a special interest. God, not organizations and churches, is the sender. Several informants say
that while the missionary era omitted discipleship from their discourse, the new missional
discourse has made it a cornerstone.238
Other informants perceive discipleship to be part of various discourses on church
growth. Movements like Willow Creek, Saddleback Community Church, Natural Church
growth and others have made a considerable impact on Norwegian church life. Some
informants link personal discipleship to such movements, although never as immediately as in
the case of missional discourse. Ree Sunde refers for instance to North Point Community
Church in Alpharetta, Georgia, and the organization Orange as their great source of
inspiration.239 These have been pioneers, she says, in a merging of child theology, discipleship,
and church growth in a fresh and relevant way.
Some informants point to evangelical sources of inspiration to discipleship.
Fagermoen does so in particular and names people like John Stott, Greg Ogden, the Lausanne
movement, Becky Pippert, etc. The previous chapter revealed how Greg Ogden’s books in
particular play a vital role in the process of reformulating the strategies in Laget.
Others again claim their inspiration of discipleship is found in circles of spiritual
disciplines and monastic practices. Grønvik explicitly mentions the Scottish Renovare
238
I did several interviews and workshops with staff from organizations outside the sample during the work for
this thesis. The interviews and materials from these sessions were omitted largely because what they said largely
was said by others already. At this point, however, they would have underlined the point made. (I am referring to
the interview with Halvor Lindal and Egil Elling Ellingsen, executives at Impuls/IMI Church, and the workshops
with NMS Church Planting network and NMSU.) Books have been written on the subject as well; see for
instance, Breen and Cockram, Å bygge en disippelkultur.
239
www.whatisorange.com
133
community and Richard Foster’s book on spiritual practices.240 Ree Sunde admits some
influence from Celtic spirituality, especially Lindisfarne spirituality, in the Disciple Pulse
program. The Norwegian retreat movement and Edin Løvås in particular are important for
several informants. (Edin Løvås will be the subject of extensive comment in section 4.1.2).
Wirgenes, for one, sees the retreat movement not only as an important source for discipleship,
but also as a setting which makes it safe enough to talk about discipleship in a rewarding way.
I will also claim that the charismatic discourse is influencing our object of study. This
will however need some extra reasoning. In the interview, Firing Hvambsal repeatedly and
unsolicited claimed that Norges KFUK-KFUM is an ecumenical organization – being the
national partner of one of the world’s largest ecumenical organizations (YMCA). She even
hints at the possibility of becoming interreligious in the distant future. Her point is to be
consequently open to anyone. She draws one distinct line, however, at charismatic
Christianity. This is something they are not – and most definitely not want to be. In contrast, it
is interesting to see how Nordli argues that Ungdom i Oppdrag is a fully ecumenical
organization, bringing together people from any tradition, from Pentecostal to orthodox, and
taking onboard practices from any tradition. He also draws one distinct line; people and
practices must be open to charismatic impulses. The charismatic/non-charismatic divide
seems more absolute to these two informants than any other theological marker. Interestingly,
both of them connect discipleship to charismatics. Without ever saying this explicitly, they
share this assumption. Kilde Aarebrot comes from a Pentecostal environment where
discipleship was talked about in a way that was never attractive to him. Nilsen Rotevatn and
Wirgenes have experienced charismatic discipleship in a way that did not appeal to them.
Grønvik and Wirgenes also refer to the charismatic branch of the Jesus-movement in the
1970s as a place where a charismatic discipleship discourse was kept alive. Especially among
the low and moderate-frequency organizations the assumption is very much alive that
discipleship is a charismatically inspired phenomenon.
Yet another inspirational source pointed to by the informants is the Christian left-wing
social activist discourse. Kilde Aarebrot mentions several examples affiliated with the
Emerging Church movement as places of discipleship: new monasticism, Re-Imagine, and
others. Several political and theological streams meet in this movement: social justice,
environmental awareness, and military pacifism being among them. Grønvik traces his
enthusiasm for discipleship to the days of the Jesus-movement and the fight for similar causes.
240
Richard J. Foster, Tone Benestad, and Øivind Benestad, Veier til glede: Innføring i de klassiske åndelige
disipliner (Oslo: Luther, 2001).
134
He mentions explicitly several important social activists as important for Korsvei’s and his
own understanding of the discipleship: Ron Sider and Jim Wallis in particular.241
The last source I will mention at some length is discipleship being part of an
ecumenical discourse. In several ways discipleship seems in some aspects to supersede
confessional boundaries. Most of the sources already mentioned in this chapter are discourses
that have influence across church borders. A contributing factor to this might be that
discipleship is metaphorically close to the shared language of the New Testament. The case is
that all high-frequency organizations are ecumenically open. Laget, traditionally a solid
Lutheran organization, has over the last decade or so loosened its confessional bindings –
parallel to introducing discipleship. Misjonsforbundet Ung is confessional, but its
denomination holds “the unity of all believers” as a core value, practicing for instance both
adult and infant baptism.
There are more discourse sources that could be mentioned in relation to discipleship.
One could for instance coin a costly grace discourse following the inspiration of Dietrich
Bonhoeffer. The informants from both Korsvei and Laget relate discipleship to his legacy.
Another example could have been a soul-friend/mentoring discourse. The Navigators is
frequently mentioned as source of inspiration in linking discipleship and relational
accountability. The informants from Laget, Changemaker and KRIK, however differently,
perceive discipleship as part of a soul-friend discourse. And just to mention a third example in
brief: some relate discipleship to a New Testament/Early Church discourse. I will elaborate on
these later.
4.1.2 Distilling the discourse – reception in the case of Edin Løvås
In the previous chapter we saw how the informants related their understanding of discipleship
to a number of discourses as sources of inspiration. I identified at least ten such discourses
just within the material at hand and as articulated by the informants: Missional, Church
growth, Evangelical, Retreat, Monastic, Charismatic, Social activist, Ecumenical, Costly
grace, Soul-friend, and New Testament discourses. The list is not even exhaustive; there are
probably many more examples around.
Taking a step further, I will now describe how I understand the informants to draw
from these sources. For that I use the term “distilling the discourse” in order to pinpoint how
241
The books he mentions are: Ronald J. Sider, Rich Christians in an age of hunger: A Biblical study (Downers
Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press, 1977); Jim Wallis, The call to conversion: Recovering the gospel for these times
(San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1981).
135
the informants extract only parts of each discourse. They are in fact active and self-conscious
negotiators – and bring on board only a chosen portion of the practice or content available in
each discourse. I will exemplify this activity of negotiation with following three informants’
reception of Edin Løvås.
Three informants (Grønvik, Ree Sunde and Holm) talked rather extensively about how
Edin Løvås had made an impact on their organization’s strategy and theology (Korsvei,
Misjonsforbundet Ung, and KRIK). While many of the origins of discipleship in Norwegian
Christian youth organizations are imports, at least one is predominantly Norwegian: Edin
Løvås.
Løvås was born in 1920 and died in 2014. Until recently he was an active evangelist,
preacher and spiritual advisor. For most people he is known as “the father of the retreat
movement”. His contributions have directly and indirectly resulted in the establishment of
several retreat-centers around Norway. In 1952 he introduced Ignatian meditation to
Norwegian Christianity.242 Løvås has left a grand literary production on Christian life and
spirituality, several of these works are on the topic of discipleship.243 While controversial at
times, his notoriously ecumenically open approach to theology and his obvious
communicative skills earned him a high standing across most of the Christian landscape.
Grønvik in Korsvei and Løvås were personally acquainted since the days of the Jesusmovement in the 1970s through active participation in the retreat-movement. Grønvik in fact
wrote Edin Løvås’ biography.244 Løvås has since the beginning been a supplier of theological
and strategic terms in Korsvei. Despite the diversity represented among the members of
Korsvei, they insist on a traceable core of ideology in the movement going back to Edin
Løvås keeping together the social and the spiritual in a language of discipleship:
The second part of our objects clause, or actually, both parts are strongly inspired by Edin
Løvås’ vocabulary concerning discipleship. I have brought a couple of books about Edin
Løvås. He has some definitions on what it is to be a disciple: “To be a disciple is to be
someone who lives in a strong personal relationship with Jesus Christ.” He also has another
one saying, “To be a disciple is to be someone who identifies with the interests of Jesus Christ
in the world.”
Grønvik explains how Korsvei would have been impossible without Edin Løvås and
the retreat movement. The pioneers were driven by this spirituality. And what they
242
Edin Løvås, Åndelige øvelser for en Kristus-disippel (Oslo: Land og kirke, 1952).
Løvås, Vår tid trenger kristusdisipler; Edin Løvås, Smak og se: 52 åndelige øvelser for en kristusdisippel
(Vinterbro: Atheneum, 1995); Edin Løvås, Disipler (Garmo: Sandom retreatsenter, 1976); Løvås, Åndelige
øvelser for en Kristus-disippel; Løvås, Kanskje dette er vegen; Løvås, Kristusbudskapet i 2000+.
244
Knut Grønvik, Snekkersønnen: Edin Løvås - en biografi (Oslo: Luther, 1995).
243
136
experienced at the first couple of festivals would soon confirm and reinforce this spirituality’s
position. Grønvik tells how people longed for a broadening of their spiritual life; those
already involved in socio-political activism sought a deepening of inner life, and those already
involved in meditation etc. sought social-political challenges. Korsvei has tried to meet these
needs with spirituality borrowed from the retreat movement, and has especially framed its
ideology in the discipleship vocabulary of Løvås.
Any reader of Edin Løvås would be able to find examples of inward- and outwardspirituality in his writing – the one element that Korsvei has extracted and made a major point.
The centrality of this in Løvås is a question more open to discussion. Korsvei has made more
out of it, and made it more central, than Løvås ever did in his books and preaching. There are
also central elements in Løvås writing that never found their way into Korsvei. In
Misjonsforbundet Ung, for instance, they have extracted other elements of Edin Løvås in their
construction of discipleship.
Løvås has since his early conversion been a member of Misjonsforbundet. Ree Sunde
describes Løvås as a great inspiration and supporter. Even in his nineties he regularly dropped
by the office, eager to listen, to give backing, and share visions. Misjonsforbundet Ung has,
like Korsvei, made a definition of discipleship, but this is not traceable to Løvås. His impact
in Misjonsforbundet is more of the symbolic kind, and evidentially visible in at least two
ways: first, the logo of the denomination displayed on most of its church buildings, on jewelry,
letterheads and prints, was designed by Edin Løvås. The “disciple cross” is a slightly
modified cross where the horizontal “arms” are slightly bent/tilted as if stretching upwards in
joy. The second way Løvås has marked discipleship in Misjonsforbundet Ung is as a role
model and example of life-long learning. Edin Løvås discipleship is, according to Ree Sunde,
associated with an attitude and practices of always seeking renewal and never ceasing to grow
in Christ. The person of Edin Løvås has become the embodiment of such a mentality. Getting
old was never an excuse for slowing down, not showing interest, or not expanding his and
others’ perspectives. In Misjonsforbundet Ung, this is largely connected to discipleship; this is
discipleship. Misjonsforbundet Ung has from Edin Løvås’ discipleship mainly extracted a
symbol for always stretching upwards towards Christ in joyful expectation.
A third reception of Edin Løvås’ discipleship is found in KRIK. Løvås has for a long
time been an important contributor and conversational partner to KRIK. Holm, unlike the
other two, did not know Edin Løvås personally, but Kjell Markset, the founder of KRIK, did.
KRIK has predominantly used Løvås as a preacher at festivals etc. His message about
137
discipleship in KRIK did not deviate substantially from his teaching at Korsvei or in
Misjonsforbundet Ung.245 All three informants also reveal intimate knowledge of Løvås’
classic book on discipleship:246 Grønvik edited an updated version of this book for Løvås’
seventy-fifth birthday in 1995.247 Ree Sunde refers to the book several times in her interview.
KRIK republished sections of Løvås’ book for the millennium festival in the year 2000.248
Much of what Løvås and others have taught, preached and written in KRIK is on the
topic of discipleship; it is however not interpreted as such in this context. In KRIK Løvås is,
according to Holm, the ambassador of the Gospel. KRIK receives his preaching about
discipleship as a message about Jesus.
We see how Løvås has left rather different footprints in the three organizations. Or to
rephrase: we see how various organizations distill and extract the sources of discipleship
differently. Each organization seems to have pre-set values that govern the way they extract
from the sources.
We could have made similar patterns visible by following the reception of other
sources of discipleship in various organizations: Nordli credits the Navigators as a source of
inspiration about discipleship understood as evangelism, Fagermoen credits the Navigators as
a source of inspiration about discipleship in small groups, while Holm credits the Navigators
as a source of inspiration about sharing thoughts with a soul-friend – not mentioning
discipleship.
4.1.3 Combining distilled sources in composing discipleship
There are countless sources for discipleship in the Christian tradition; some of which we
identified in the material. Then there are countless ways to distill these discourses and to
extract elements from each source for whatever purpose. Finally, there are countless ways to
combine these distilled sources in a composition named “discipleship”. This creative task
calls for imagination and discernment in a number of areas.
The process described above seems for the most part subconsciously present among
the informants in the material. Still, I find traces of such a compositional process regarding
discipleship throughout the sample. Although it is most visible among the high-frequency
organizations, I would argue that similar processes are also very much present in the lowfrequency organizations. The very concept of discipleship – which they have chosen to omit –
245
I have personally heard him speak in all three contexts. Edin Løvås was not afraid of repeating a good sermon.
Løvås, Kanskje dette er vegen?
247
Where he even included “disciple” in the title: Løvås, Vår tid trenger kristusdisipler.
248
Løvås, Kristusbudskapet i 2000+.
246
138
is also a composition. They have connected discipleship to discourses with which they for
some reason do not affiliate, distilled these sources by extracting elements they do not fancy,
and combined these elements in a discipleship they do not relate to.
This process of connecting, distilling, and combining discourses is now introduced.
When we now turn our attention to different uses of discipleship, we will see more clearly the
implications of this negotiation.
4.2
Uses of discipleship in situation
Based on what has been said about the potentially infinite number of sources, distillations,
and combinations available for constructing discipleship, one might expect a large number of
uses in the material. This is not the case. The opposite, that the informants represent one
single and unified use, is also not the case. This chapter claims the middle ground between the
two extremes. It argues that the many occurrences of discipleship vocabulary in the interview
transcripts fall into a limited number of basic patterns, uses that stand out as dominating.
Despite a seemingly endless syntactic variation in the material, the pragmatic variation of
discipleship is more limited. This limitation is set by a handful of purposes – a manageable
number of uses. To acknowledge the difference between these uses, that there in fact exist (at
least) five unique compositions of discipleship in the material and thereby on a strategic level
in Norwegian Christian youth organizations, is crucial. To ignore this variation would be to
misunderstand the entire phenomenon.
I reached this claim only through an, to me, intricate inductive process. Embarrassing
to say, I struggled with this sub-chapter for more than a year, never quite getting satisfying
answers to questions like “How do the informants use discipleship?” and “For what purpose
do the informant use discipleship?”. After several failed attempts, I took the time to do a
syntactic analysis of discipleship vocabulary in the interview transcripts. (Methodologically
this resembles the approach to official documents in chapter 2.)
The nitty-gritty work of categorizing the 542 occurrences by the way each occurrence
was morphologically constructed paid off in the end.249 It became increasingly clear that
discipleship vocabulary appears in the material in a range of unique syntactic forms or
cognates: (a) as a proper noun in singular form (e.g.: disciple), (b) as a proper noun in plural
form (e.g.: disciples), (c) as “disciple” with the appended suffix “ship” (e.g.: discipleship), (d)
as “follow” with the appended suffix “ship” (e.g.: followship), (e) as a concrete noun-noun
249
The actual number of unique occurrences in the interviews is 706. Of these 164 are used by me in questions,
leaving 542 to the informants. For a full overview, see Table 4.
139
compound (e.g.: disciple-cross), (f) as an abstract noun-noun compound (e.g.: discipleterminology), and (g) as a noun-verb compound (e.g.: to disciple/disciple-making).
"Disciple-noun"
compounds
(concrete) 15,2 %
"Disciple" (sg.),
24,7 %
"Disciple-noun"
compounds
(abstract), 10,9 %
"Disiple" + "s" (pl.)
14,6 %
"Disciple-verb"
compounds
11,9 %
"Follow" (+ suffix
"ship")
16,0 %
"Disciple" + suffix:
"ship", 13,8 %
F IG U R E 5: S Y N T A C T IC F O R M S O F D IS C IP L E S H IP V O C A B U L A RY .
I was for long hesitant as to how to interpret this finding. It did however feel like a
small breakthrough when I came to consider that these morphological constructions actually
indicated different linguistic functions or purposes. Variation in discipleship vocabulary on a
syntactic level did seemingly conceal variation on a pragmatic level. In the words of Morris’
model of the pragmatic task – we now explore the relation between the sign-vehicle
(discipleship vocabulary) and uses of interpreters in situations. I was soon ready to categorize
all the occurrences by function as implied by morphological construction. There was only one
small detour to make. I had to reconsider the two categories of “disciple” as a proper noun.
The distinction between singular and plural forms did not seem descriptive for function. Both
forms “disciple/-s” were for the most part found in predicative expressions following a
140
linking/copulative verb (Example: “She is a disciple” / “we are disciples”). My original
distinction between singular or plural forms needed revision.250
I did however reach an alternative distinction. Predicative expressions, like the
examples above, most commonly denote a name, property or description of a subject. Here,
however, I saw that the term “disciple/-s” also was used in four different ways: (a) sometimes
in reference to the historical twelve, (b) sometimes in reference to an (ultimate) ideal to aspire
to, (c) sometimes in terminological or conceptual modification, and (d) sometimes to describe
a possible mode or state of being. 251
Upon completing this detour I was ready to synthesize form and function, or should
we say syntactics and pragmatics. The disciple-verb compounds would need a pragmatic
category of their own – describing a method. The rest of the metaphorical construction would
fall nicely into either one of the four categories of “disciple/-s”.
250
I think I originally made this distinction biased by the much-rehearsed criticism of discipleship being too
individualistic oriented (as personal relationship with Christ etc.). I was curious to see if some of the informants
used one form considerably more than the other. This did not seem to be the case. Only three informants used the
communal “disciples” (pl.) more frequent than the individual “disciple” (sg.). The disciple/disciples ratio
distributed by informants showed that seven out of ten informants in fact talked more about “being a disciple”
than “being disciples together with others”. This observation is still very much open to interpretation. Two
informants did however use singular forms 3.3 and 9.7 times as often as plural forms. In the cases of these (one
from a high-frequency organization and one from a low-frequency organization) it might be a plausible
conclusion that an individualistic form of faith could have biased their use of discipleship terminology. The main
impression, however, is that any differentiation between singular and plural forms done by the informants rely
on coincidence.
251
It was interesting to see the distribution: The high-frequency organizations represented 58.9% of the
occurrences where disciple/-s was used in reference to a mode/state of being and 50% of the occurrences where
disciple/-s was used in reference to a term/concept. The moderate-frequency organizations represented a
majority of 58.1% of cases where disciple/-s was used in reference to the historical disciples of Jesus. The lowfrequency organizations on their part represented the greatest portion of occurrences where disciple/-s was used
in reference to an ideal (43.2%).
141
Syntactics
Pragmatics
Morphological constructions
Purpose / Function in use
Disciple
(In singular form)
A reference to the twelve
Disciples
(In plural form)
A model of ideals
Discipleship
(“Disciple”+suffix “ship”)
A marker of modification
(terminological/conceptual)
Followship
(“Follow”+suffix “ship”)
Disciple+noun
(Concrete compound)
A mode/state of spirituality
Disciple+noun
(Abstract compound)
A method of influence
Disciple+verb
(noun-verb compound)
F IG U R E 6: R E L A T IO N B E T W E E N S Y N T A C T IC F O R M S A N D PR A G M A T IC F U N C T IO N S IN U S E .
4.2.1 “Disciple” used in reference to the twelve
The fact that informants use “disciple” in reference to the historic disciples of Jesus hardly
qualifies as a discovery. It is safe to say, I think, that for most Norwegians “the disciples”
intuitively is a reference to the twelve disciples of Jesus – the supporting actors in the Jesus
narrative.
In light of this, then, it is a bit surprising that the same kind of reference is made just
twenty-two times by the informants. Only seven informants do so, and only two out of four
informants coming from high-frequency organizations refer to the twelve. To me this is close
to incredible. There was plenty of time – the conversations lasted from 60 to 120 minutes.
There was nothing wrong with competence, interest or motivation, on either side of the table,
during the interviews. In fact, the low-frequency informants make this reference far more
often (58.1% of the occurrences) than the informants from the high-frequency organizations
(16.1% of the occurrences).
It is of course important not to make too much out of this. The data source is rather
slender (22 occurrences). Later, in chapters 5 and 6 we will however see a similar pattern
142
occur again and again: an active use of discipleship on a strategic level in Norwegian
Christian youth organizations does not represent a retrieval or a return to the basis of
discipleship – rather the opposite. In chapter 5 we will see how discipleship for many has lost
its reference to education. In chapter 6 it will be evident that the link to Christology in the
high-frequency organizations is rather a weak one. For now it will do to mark that
discipleship vocabulary in the interviews of informants from high-frequency organizations,
with some exceptions, is rarely used with reference to Jesus’ historical disciples.
Earlier I made the point that discipleship calls for imagination and creativity. I do
however understand this call as an invitation to construct and create on a given basis and
within a given framework – not disconnected and apart from it. Has discipleship as a concept
drifted too far off from its generative source? It could in some cases certainly seem like it. I
have at least come to realize that any conceptualization of discipleship contains a certain
potential of doing so.
4.2.2 “Disciple” used as model of ideals
A second way the informants use discipleship vocabulary is as a term referring to an ideal.
During the interviews, “disciple” was used thirty-eight times this way. A disciple, then,
denotes an envisioned standard of Christian faith and living, something to aspire to. The
purpose of this use is probably not to introduce additional criteria for being Christian, but
rather to motivate growth and endurance through a conceivable second level of Christian
living. The result, however, is often dispiritedness. Several informants say they associate this
kind of self-approved discipleship with those who need to stand out from the rest of us.
Elitism is an impending danger, they say.
In the material I find two versions of this: one that resembles the way other New
Testament descriptions are used as honorary titles in certain settings – prophets, apostles, and
the like; and another that draws the mind away from grace and towards self-justification –
disciple being the ultimate virtue, the top step of a ladder. While the former version
challenges the notion of unity and creates unwanted hierarchies among fellow Christians, the
latter version is more psychological. The informants experience the result in any way as
failure.
It should be added that the material leaves very few examples of “disciple” used
actively this way. The occurrences are predominantly reflecting connotations of those not
very enthusiastic about discipleship in the first place. Informants from low-frequency
organizations represent the majority (43.2%) of the occurrences when “disciple” is used in
143
reference to an ideal.252 I see this partly as an indication of why they are hesitant towards any
kind of discipleship; the more idealistic understanding the word takes on, the less fitting it is
for framing ecclesiology and spirituality. To make divisions among members, or to reject the
grace of God, is not what Christian organizations strive for.
4.2.3 “Disciple” used as marker of modification
During the interviews, the executives used the proper nouns “disciple” and “disciples” as a
reference to the term itself on forty-three occasions. This happened most often when they
talked about how the word in itself awoke connotations, promises, and stirred emotions –
when discussing the communicative abilities of the word. One informant, Firing Hvambsal,
suggested that a survey on public talk would be appropriate – to find out what ordinary people
associate with discipleship. She was not very optimistic, and would prefer understandable
language. Norges KFUK-KFUM meets a lot of young people who do not regularly attend
church, she says. For them it is worlds apart to be challenged about discipleship or to be asked
about how they would choose to live their life and care for the people in their surroundings. It
goes without saying that she prefers the latter alternative.
Several of the other informants also shared similar concerns; it is simply not a very
communicative word among the public. Ree Sunde tells about a time when “disciple” was an
incomprehensible word – even in Misjonsforbundet. She claims Edin Løvås was the one who
single-handedly made it useful.
In a way he has warmed up Misjonsforbundet for several decades. Today we are at a point
where a lot of literature uses that kind of vocabulary, and discipleship vocabulary is much
used in youth settings. For us it is natural to use.
I will return to this in 4.3.1 when discussing the role of agents in introducing
discipleship to organizational strategy. What she says is supported by others: The term
“disciple” needs a defined context and an insistent advocate of the term over a long period of
time in order to be established as normal or customary.
It appears that discipleship to a large extent is contextually negotiated based on
linguistic instinct and sensitivity. This becomes even clearer when we now introduce two
additional kinds of morphological constructions found in the material, the two kinds of
disciple-noun compounds.
252
Gran Martinsen from Norges unge katolikker represents a third of the occurrences. She repeatedly
substantiated her concerns for discipleship in the assumption that such an ideal is a threat to communal aspects
of the Church and to motivation.
144
One-fifth of the times informants used discipleship vocabulary in the interviews it
took on the role of noun-noun compound words. Compound words are two or more free
morphemes linked together. Noun-noun compounds are generally endocentric; the first noun
acts as a modifier for the second noun, which is often referred to as the “head”. The meaning
of a compound, then, is a specialized meaning of the second morpheme. With only one or two
exceptions, “disciple’/’discipleship” took the place of the first modifying noun. I discern
between concrete and abstract compounds, as they are used rather differently.
The concrete noun-noun compounds referred to a number of things: artifacts (disciplecross, disciple-text, disciple-tool, etc.), programs (Disciple-Pulse, DTS, disciple-seminar,
disciple-school, disciple-class), practices (disciple-life, disciple-practice, disciple-work),
fellowships (disciple-role, disciple-group, disciple-relationships, disciple-movement, discipleteacher), and events (disciple-awakening, etc.). Here “disciple” is used for branding purposes.
It is set up to present the artifact, program, practice, fellowship, or event – as having a special
quality and with a certain flavor. The point here is not that “disciple” is a very understandable
word with a clear semantic meaning and content, but that it evokes in the receiver a certain
promise, taste, and blend. The point is not what the word says. The point is what it does.
The informants’ forty-one occurrences are scattered around seemingly coincidentally.
Two patterns are however worth mentioning: “Disciple Training School”/“DTS” is the
worldwide training concept in Youth With A Mission. Half of the informants refer to this, and
the brand seems institutionalized and connected to YWAM. The second pattern is that one
single informant represents half of all the concrete disciple-compounds occurrences. It is
obvious that in some organizations, like this one, “disciple” has the potential of becoming a
well-reputed label, an insider’s code. In settings where “disciple” already has positive
connotations, it takes on the characteristics of a buzzword. The head of the compound is the
artifact, program, and practice etc. “Disciple” is the modifier, adding some sort of flavor to
that head.
The other set of noun-noun compounds are abstracts. These are not endocentric, but
disciple is the head linked to a following abstract noun. (e.g.: disciple-metaphor, discipleshipideology etc.) The informants used fourteen unique abstract compounds a total of fifty-five
times. However, three of the informants were responsible for 85% of these occurrences.253
253
These informants show an impressive appetite for theoretical abstractions. The abstract compound “discipleterm” (Norw. “disippelbegrep’) is by far the most frequent with thirty-one mentions. But also a wide range of
other abstract compounds is used on several occasions. (One informant uses six unique compounds on seventeen
occasions. Another informant uses four unique compounds, a total of total times. Their use does not seem to
overlap. For details and a graphic illustration, see 4.2.6.)
145
Interestingly, these three informants are among the most educated theologians in my sample.
Perhaps abstract compounds are distancing devices for academic reflection? 254
I think it is possible to interpret the two kinds of noun-noun compounds collectively
(concretes and abstracts), as two sides of the same coin: some interpret the loaded language of
discipleship as a catchy quality for marketing, while others as an inelegant quality needing
some kind of distancing. In both cases it is possible to sense the dynamics of a buzzword
lurking in the background.
This situation is not exclusive to discipleship vocabulary – far from it. Both in church
and academia we are used to handling terminology not customary to the public majority.
Some terms we passionately renovate, others we let sink into oblivion. The words we use, the
tools we are bound to in theologizing, are rarely neutral. Even in scholarly theology some
words become buzzwords that escape critical attention and work as social codes.
To establish a working language among all available codes is part of the strategic task
of leadership in organizations – much based on linguistic instinct – and discipleship is subject
to this kind of discernment.
4.2.4 “Disciple” used as mode of spirituality
In a total of ninety instances, which is close to 50% of the occurrences, “disciple/-s” was used
to refer to what could be called a role or characteristic. This way “disciple” marks a state of
being shaping the identity of whoever takes it on.
Although all ten informants used “disciple/-s” this way, informants from highfrequency organizations were predominantly more represented. They stood for 58.9% of the
occurrences. The low-frequency organizations represent 30.6%, while the moderatefrequency organizations 10.5%.
This use is not only the most common; it also acts as a prerequisite for any meaningful
use of discipleship vocabulary at large. This claim is backed up by the use of two additional
morphological constructions: “discipleship” and “followship”. “Disciple/-s”, “discipleship”,
and “followship” are syntactically unique. Their use, however, is remarkably in accordance,
and their function correlated. With the exception of some nuances, to which I will return later,
they refer to what human beings who understand themselves as disciples actually do and are.
254
In the analysis I also realized that in my questions I used abstract compounds far more than any informant:
“discipleship vocabulary” (26 times), “disciple-theology” (6 times), “disciples-metaphor” (6 times), and six
other abstract compounds on twelve different occasions. In hindsight I think it would have been beneficial if I
had been more terminologically collected – and established a less abstract language for interviews.
146
In linguistics, the general rule is that when the suffix “-ship” is appended to a noun, a
new noun is formed denoting a certain property or state of being. This is also the case with the
morphological construction “disciple-ship”. “Discipleship” occurs seventy times in the
material. Followship, on the other hand, occurs eighty-one times in the interview
transcripts.255 “Followship” has, contrary to “discipleship”, a verb as stem (to follow (after)
somebody), and the suffix (in Norwegian) is “-else”, not “-skap”. The result is however
similar: the construction of a noun denoting a property or state of being. In Norwegian
language the two words are intertwined. This claim is backed up by a remarkable common
distribution in the material.
Executive KRIK
Executive NUK
Executive KFUK-KFUM
Executive Trosopplæringen
Executive Substans
Executive Laget
Executive Misjonsforb. Ung
Executive UiO
Executive Korsvei
Total
“Discipleship”
“Followship”
Executive Changemaker
T A B L E 3: O C C U R R E N C E S O F “ D IS C IP L E S H IP ” A N D “ F O L L O W S H IP ” B Y O R G A N IZ A T IO N .
2
4
1
10
3
9
0
0
9
10
8
3
5
6
9
3
7
1
26
35
70
81
Also when it comes to discipleship and followship we see that the high-frequency
organizations represent a significant majority (53.5% and 48.4%).
I have made the case for “being a disciple”, “discipleship”, and “followship” for the
most part having corresponding uses throughout the material. Still, we should not overlook
nuances and internal differences. Again we approach the area of linguistic instinct, which is
key to understanding the discipleship phenomenon on a strategic level in Norwegian Christian
youth organizations.
Knut Grønvik, representing Korsvei, is probably the one informant who makes the
clearest distinction. Although discipleship vocabulary is found in high numbers at the highest
level of strategy in Korsvei’s official documents, he describes having mixed emotions about
255
In the Norwegian language things are a bit more complicated than in English. The Norwegian term
“etterfølgelse” is also found in an additional eighty-one occurrences throughout the interview material.
“Etterfølgelse” also translates into English as “discipleship”, although a verbatim translation would have been
“after-follow-ship”. To distinguish the two I will hereafter refer to “followship”.
147
this vocabulary throughout the organization. For some, he said, discipleship vocabulary is
perfectly normal and is experienced as meaningful. For the vast majority of Korsveiers,
however, this is not the case. In his experience there is however a difference in “followship”
and “discipleship” at this point. For most people “followship” is far more easy to
communicate and friendlier to use.
I know that not everyone in our organization is comfortable talking about discipleship. We
would rather talk about followship and how to be followers of Christ. Our experience is that
for most people this might be easier than to be in a discipleship of Christ. But that just might
be my feeling…
At this point Kilde Aarebrot (Substans) agrees with Grønvik (Korsvei). As we know
by now, he generally seeks to avoid discipleship vocabulary – for him it is a word without
meaning and in urgent need of a rest. Despite that, he surprised me in the interview by saying
that “followship” is a word he has started to use more and more.
Perhaps “followship” does not have as many negative connotations. Compared to
“discipleship” it cannot be interpreted in so many ways. It is hard to avoid the fact that
followship has something to do with self-denial, something that involves a little pain, at least
something else than just walking my own way.
To Kilde Aarebrot “followship” sounds both different and better than “discipleship”.
He only partially grounds this in semantic clarity, something which “followship” inhabits and
discipleship don’t. But more importantly he grounds his claim in pragmatics: the effect of
discipleship is close to zero, while followship has a clear outcome. It leads people into an
ascetic and activist lifestyle – which is the reference point in Substans…
For Grønvik, personally, I get the impression that the two words represent the same.
When he, like Kilde Aarebrot for that matter, makes a distinction between the two it is on
behalf of others. He tells about the difficulties they have experienced in Korsvei in talking
about discipleship, and why it somehow has been easier to talk about followship:
Discipleship-terminology in our settings is not taken for granted. By calling myself a disciple,
I run the risk of signaling belonging to a group I don't want to be identified with. It is easier to
talk about followship. I try to live like a follower should. This is also pious language. But I
think most people will find it more open.
For us it has not been easy to use disciple vocabulary because of narrow groups that again and
again have occupied the term and claimed ownership over it. If you don’t want to be
associated with that specific group or environment, you generally don’t want to use that
terminology.
Again we see that pragmatic consideration plays a definite part in the use of
discipleship. Any future academic or doctrinal theology on discipleship should take into
148
account that pragmatic negotiation and real-life experiences govern theologizing in the
practice field as much as a semantic oriented systematic theology does. Linguistic instinct
works along other lines than systematic theology.
4.2.5 “Disciple” used as method of influence
Yet another morphological construction reveals a fifth and final use of discipleship
vocabulary. The “disciple”-verb compounds occurred a total of sixty times in the interviews,
and exclusively in inflected forms of the verb “disciple-making”. Discipleship vocabulary in
this syntactic form references a strategy of leading others into discipleship – a method of
influence, if you will.
Three informants were responsible for 95% of these occurrences, which hints at a
somewhat specialized use. We realize that to them this is an important phrase in their
organizational strategies when we see its share of total discipleship vocabulary: Fagermoen
(Laget) uses “disciple-making” in 21 out of 51 instances, Ree Sunde (MU) in 15 out of 88
times, and Nordli (Ungdom i Oppdrag) uses some form of “disciple-making” on 21 out of 40
occasions in total.
One way to interpret this use is as an attempt to revitalize an educational purpose of
discipleship. Another – as all three also do – is to refresh a missional identity based in the
Great Commission (Matthew 28:19), which is one of four occurrences of a similar discipleverb compound in the New Testament (Gr. µαθητεύσατε).256 This use of discipleship
vocabulary does however bring to mind the philosophy behind the paradigmatic discipletraining school concept in Ungdom i Oppdrag.
It is a brave move, I think, to frame a method of influence in the language of
discipleship vocabulary. There are several obvious benefits in doing this. To ground one’s
pedagogical and missional program not only historically, but also methodologically, in the
New Testament could be motivating for some. At its best, it could situate one’s own
organization in direct continuation with the life and commandments of Jesus. There are,
however, good reasons not to be one-sidedly enthusiastic about such a use. This is especially
the case when it becomes a system of accountability rather than a strategy for mission.
Two more informants mentioned disciple-making, one only in passing. The other,
Grønvik (Korsvei), gave it some more reflection:
256
Matthew 13:52; 27:57; 28:19; and Acts 14:21.
149
My biggest concern about disciple terminology is how it has been used in a few charismatic
low-church circles where discipleship has been exposed to strange linguistic constructions like
“disciple-making” and that sort of things. But I have been thinking that the way out of this is
not to let those people in peace, but rather to think that this [disciple] is such a central term in
the tradition of the church and in the Gospels that many of us should take part in shaping what
discipleship is.
In our organization we try to talk about followship and use metaphors that people feel are
more open, and in a language more people can enter. We don’t want to be affiliated with those
doing disciple-making and represent a narrow sect/cult.
This quote was from one of my first interviews and the term “disciple-making” was
new to me, I must admit. I guess it is possible to do disciple-making in a perfectly healthy
way, or to speak about disciple-making in strategy and still be a healthy organization. I do
however now think, as this informant does, that any talk of disciple-making in the sense of a
method for influence should act as a possible warning-sign.
Grønvik connected disciple-making as phenomenon to cults, and specifically the
Children of God movement he had met in the 1970s. As I explain in more detail in section
6.3.5, I have since then come across a rather large body of literature based on experiences
with the flipside of disciple-making. I do not think any of the informants are in particular
danger of becoming cults, not even the three high-frequency users of disciple-making. I do
however think that that kind of language leads to some potentially dangerous characteristics:
•
•
•
To follow Jesus or to be a disciple is always voluntary. Any program or strategy that
intentionally seeks to influence someone else runs the risk of reducing that freedom.
Jesus Christ should always be the one who is followed in a Christian discipleship. Any
person that relationally seeks to influence someone else runs the risk of taking on an
authority that belongs not to him but to Jesus.
To live a life of discipleship should be a heuristic process, where one seeks to respond
accordingly to situations not defined in advance. Any program or strategy that seeks to
influence someone else runs the risk of reducing education to repetitive imitation.
Grønvik (Korsvei) does not take his criticism this far. He is most concerned about
releasing discipleship from its linguistic captivity by broadening discipleship vocabulary. He
draws a line for his own use at the morphological construction “disciple-making”, which I
think is a piece of good advice.
“To follow someone”, “to be someone’s follower”, and “to have followers” has
become part of youth language over the last decade or so through social media. There is not
much in the material that connects this phenomenon to discipleship. Nilsen Rotevatn
(Changemaker) however does just that. This informant is to me very interesting. He describes
himself as having little interest in discipleship. His experiences of the past with discipleship150
movements have not been of the best. But out of the blue he gives this associative description
of discipleship:
Q:
What do you think of when you hear the words “disciple” and “discipleship”? Is it
natural for you to use such words?
MNR: I don’t think so. Eh. No, it doesn’t feel natural for me. In a way it is a word connected
to a culture I am not a part of, in a way. But when I think of it, it is actually a quite ok
word, in a way. (It is good) to follow a belief in something, to dare to follow someone
taking an initiative, I think, if I could look at it that way. That is at least how I look at
the disciple. Those people (the twelve) actually did that… You should actually do a
search, because what I am talking about actually is on YouTube, on a TED-talk, or at
ted.com. Have you seen it?
Q:
No. I am not sure what you mean…
MNR: There is this lecture telling people “How to build a movement", or something like that.
It is at a festival, a music-festival. Suddenly a guy starts to dance like crazy in the back
of the concert-arena. After a while… Well in the beginning he is quite alone dancing,
people laugh at him and stuff. Then another guy comes along, and they start dancing
together to give him moral support or something I suppose. Their dancing is very
weird, ok?
Q:
OK.
MNR: After that everybody else flocks around them, and joins in. And what that illustrates is
that the most important people in creating interest and making movements are the ones
that dare to follow the first one. And I think that is very, you know, discipleship. At
least for me, if I should start to analyze the word “disciple”, why it is important, then I
think it would have been “we need people that dare to listen to the ideas that might
seem bad or ridiculously idealistic or something like that”, because if a few people
will recognize and approve the idea, the world will dare it too. The rest will follow.
Q:
OK.
MNR: But not everyone is brave enough to follow a single person with an idea. And that, I
think, would be my thing. But being focused that we are disciples is too connected to a
way of being Christian that I simply don’t want to spend a lot of time on: doing
mission, and that sort of thing…
I have far too little evidence in the material to suggest a correlation between social
media, disciple-making, and movement-building. But the interpretation of Nilsen Rotevatn
(Changemaker) at least opens the possibility. On my question about the relevance of
discipleship vocabulary, and from a critical position, he suddenly turns around and argues for
the efficiency and bravery of network-based movement-building following charismatic
leaders. His statement suggests at least that discipleship vocabulary in social media could be
an interesting hypothesis to follow up on in future research.
151
1
3
8
1
8
5
9
Follow+suffix “ship”)
4 10
9
10
3
6
3
Disciple+verb compounds
“Disciplemake(ing)”
“Disciplemaker”
“Disciple-making-commandment”
“Disciple-making-term”
“Disciple-making-plan”
“Disciple-making-process”
Disciple+noun compounds (abstracts)
“Disciple-term”
“Disciple-model”
“Disciple-understanding”
“Disciple-word”
2
“Disciple-culture”
“Disciple-definition”
“Disciple-language”
1
“Disciple-ideology”
“Disciple-perspective”
“Disciple-thought”
“Disciple-tradition”
“Disciple-thing”
“Disciple-path”
“Disciple-process”
1
“Disciple-pedagogics”
“Disciple-theology”
“Disciple-question”
“Disciple-paradigm”
“Disciple-metaphor”
“Disciple-concept”
“Disciple-focus”
“Disciple-phenomenon”
Disciple+noun compounds (concretes)
“Disciple-cross”
“Disciple-pulse”
“DTS”
1
1
“Disciple-life”
1
“Disciple-group”
“Disciple-role”
“Disciple-text”
“Disciple-relation”
“Disciple-awakening”
“Disciple-practice”
“Disciple-work”
“Disciple-seminar”
1
“Disciple-school”
1
“Disciple-movement”
“Disciple-teacher”
“Disciple-class”
“Disciple-tool”
Total
1
3
1
2
2
6
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
6
2
5
2
1
4
19
74
7
26
70
69
1
1
4
1
1
35
81
1
3
4
21 13 18
1
1
1
1
1
8
4
2
2
23
1
1
3
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
60
55
1
1
1
1
1
55
31
4
3
3
3
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
3
4
4
1
4
25
23
2
3
4
15
5
3
31
31
2
7
22
6
6
3
50
4
1
8
4
3
1
2
1
1
1
2
3
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
8
7
2
1
36
2
3
3
2
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
77
8
7
41
3
3
3
3
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
4
3
2
2
1
1
1
6
1
1
6
3
1
1
3 19 10
9 20
4
5
2
2
1
152
26
15
1
17 46 33 15 55 24 51 88 76 137 542
Questions Total
2
Qs Korsvei
2
2
Qs Ungdom i Oppdrag
Qs Misjonsforbundet Ung
2
Qs Changemaker
3
8
1
Qs Laget
9
Disciple+suffix “ship”
“Discipleship”
“Discipleship-vocabulary”
125
29 122
2
1
Qs Substans
8
Executives Total
8
1
3
Executive Korsvei
6
Executive Laget
4
Qs Trosopplæringen
6
5 26
Qs Norges KFUK-KFUM
4
5
Qs NUK
Disciples (pl.)
3
Qs KRIK
8
Executive UiO
4 27 11
2
Executive Misjonsf. Ung
Disciple (sg.)
“Disciple”
“Christ-disciple”
“Μαθητης”
Executive Substans
Executive KFUK-KFUM
Executive
Trosopplæringen
Executive NUK
Executive KRIK
Executive Changemaker
T A B L E 4. O C C U R R E N C E S O F D IS C IPL E S H IP V O C A B U L A R Y IN IN T E R V IE W T R A N S C R IP T S
1
1
8 30 25 18 22 164
4.3
Effects: Situated cases
I draw on Morris’ concept of “effect” with some ambivalence, as the term evokes associations
with causality and consequence. As a rule of thumb, qualitative research is very seldom able
to warrant this kind of inference. Strict causal explanations are also beyond what this project
allows, with its chosen research design.
“Effect” is however relevant in another way: as assumed effects on the informants’
side, and not warranted effects on the researcher’s side of the double hermeneutic task. When
listening to the informants they do in fact talk about effects of the use of discipleship
vocabulary. They also describe what they think causes the use of discipleship vocabulary in a
certain setting. In both cases they rely on experiences in connection to specific situations or
cases. Having read and reread their statements, I find their assumptions to relate to three
specific situations or cases, namely what happens when discipleship vocabulary (a) is brought
into organizational strategies, (b) is toned down in organizational strategy, and (c) is involved
in the negotiations of organizational identity and organizational image on a strategic level.
Within these limits, I think it is justifiable to talk about effects.
In the interviews, the informants were all asked about their experiences involving
discipleship in the past and present. They were also encouraged to share their assumptions
and reflections based on these experiences. Chapter 3 gave a broad outline of these. This
chapter revisits these experiences, but in a more focused way, according to the four cases
described above. This way, some of the assumed effects described by the informants become
clearer.
Just to underline the obvious: the assumed effects reported in this chapter are to a large
extent subjective and biased. This is, for instance, evident in how the informants talked about
positive and negative experiences. Negative experiences were largely connected to contexts
outside their own organization. The positive experiences, on the other hand, were mainly
connected to their own context. The informants who expressed both positive and negative
experiences concerning discipleship vocabulary followed this pattern: negative experiences
were almost entirely located outside their organization while the positive experiences were
located within. Nordli (Ungdom i Oppdrag) was the only informant who fundamentally broke
this pattern. He mentioned several discipleship mishaps in his own organization. He also had
a realistic attitude about the possibility of future mishaps. “But these are single instances and
should never, never, never prevent us from making disciples,” he said. He interpreted the
negative experiences as the result of a misuse of a good concept, and not the result of a flawed
153
concept. In any case, we must take into account that the experiences of the informants reflect
their stance as defenders of their organizational practice.
4.3.1 When brought into organizational strategies: The agent-of-change effect
In chapter 3 informants from high-frequency organizations in particular shared what they
assumed to be effects of introducing discipleship in organizational strategy. Grønvik
(Korsvei) told about a discipleship-spirituality that enabled the bridging of the inward and
outward, the spiritual and the social. From Nordli (Ungdom i Oppdrag) we learned about the
assumed positive effects of disciple-making: a method that not only resulted in personal
growth, but also social development for entire nations. Ree Sunde (Misjonsforbundet Ung)
believed mature Christians were prerequisites for the nurturing of new and young ones – a
discipleship culture would provide mature models of faith in the future. All these informants
had to a different extent realistic expectations about the effects of discipleship.
Laget is in fact the only organization within the sample that has recently implemented
discipleship in its strategies.257 Fagermoen understood his role as an agent of change – and
used discipleship vocabulary in this process. He did so without any hesitation. He was in fact
the only informant in the sample who did not expose any negative experiences of discipleship
whatsoever. Enthusiasm often prevails over critical reflection in the urgency of
entrepreneurship. His hopes and expectations were at a peak: a strategy of discipleship would
foster a new generation of youth with a high level of initiative and with a deep conviction to
Christ. He had seen this abroad, and now he expected similar things to happen in his own
organization.
All the executives from high-frequency organizations shared the expectation that the
implementation of discipleship in their organizational strategies would lead to benefits for
their members, their organization, and beyond. As obvious as it seems, discipleship is
introduced to organizational strategy because of various assumptions about the positive
effects of such a move.
We could also approach the question of this section from another angle. From what the
informants said, it seems as if in organizational strategies discipleship is to a large degree
indebted to “agents” of discipleship. These are individuals with two qualities: they are central
in the formulation of organizational strategy and they are believers in the positive effects of
257
Now, late in the process, I believe I regret not having included more organizations in the sample with similar
characteristics – the examples in the Norwegian context are many.
154
discipleship in organizations. Discipleship on a strategic level appears very much to depend
on key agents.
At the moment Fagermoen is such an agent of discipleship in Laget. Grønvik has had
a similar role in Korsvei since the very beginning. Edin Løvås has been a persevering agent of
discipleship in Misjonsforbundet and Misjonsforbundet Ung since the mid twentieth century.
There are probably other and more agents involved in this than the ones mentioned here – but
these are the key figures in the material. Over time, at least, people have joined in and formed
groups of such agents. After a while, discipleship becomes institutionalized as strategy. (Is
this what has happened in Ungdom i Oppdrag? Nordli could not account for the agent(s) of
discipleship here.)
Still there seems to be a need for continuous initiative from its advocates for
discipleship to remain organizational strategy. The material contains two interesting stories,
one from Misjonsforbundet Ung and one from Korsvei, both of which seem to indicate such a
fragile dependency. When the key agents of discipleship for a moment let go of the rudder
and hand over the strategic initiative, discipleship vocabulary seem to evaporate from the
documents.
The official documents from Misjonsforbundet Ung are saturated with discipleship
vocabulary. The web-published self-presentation has a frequency of 4.87% – which is
remarkably high. The History, the Yearbook, and the Disciple Pulse curriculum reveal a
considerable frequency in the high end (0.24%–0.82%). The recently published Christian
Education curriculum “Levende Tro” in this respect represents a considerable exception with
only three occurrences (0.054%).258 In the interview, Ree Sunde repeatedly presented
“Levende Tro” as the essence of discipleship and disciple-making in Misjonsforbundet Ung.
Puzzled by the contradiction between the clear numbers and Ree Sunde’s claim, I contacted
her for a second opinion. She was, like me, taken by surprise. This shift in vocabulary was by
no means intended – she swiftly denied that it represented a shift in organizational strategy or
theology. She also ruled out the possibility of expressing a linguistic adaptation to groups of
people unfamiliar with discipleship. They had however hired a competent writer for the job –
one who was only partially acquainted with the language of the organization – and Ree Sunde
could not think of any other explanation. I find her explanation reasonable. And if this is the
case, this incident supports the argument of fragility. It is interesting that the outsourcing of a
258
Misjonsforbundet Ung, Levende tro: En pedagogisk trosopplæringsplan for aldersgruppen 0 - 20 år til bruk i
hjem og menighet: 19, 5, 20. Once it refers to the historical disciples, once to an ideal, and once to a state of
being.
155
writing assignment can change an organizations’ strategic vocabulary. That no one seemed to
notice is perhaps even more interesting. “Levende Tro” is still the cornerstone of the
discipleship strategy of Misjonsforbundet Ung, even without the vocabulary. It is of course
tempting then to ask about the necessity of the term itself.
The material from Korsvei serves as a similar example. The frequency of discipleship
vocabulary is fairly high across most documents, with a frequency ranging from 0.38% to
1.90%. The book Veivisere deviates from this pattern.259 Most people see this as the
ideological cornerstone of the movement – and rightly so: it is the single most widely
distributed document. This booklet is also free from any discipleship vocabulary. Grønvik, the
discipleship agent per se in Korsvei, made this a point in the interview. Since the very
beginning he has taken an active part in the linguistic, theological and strategic developments
of Korsvei. He has been the guarantor for the idea that Korsvei is a movement spun around
the discipleship-question. Grønvik was on a leave at the time when Veivisere was written.
Upon returning he found it ready for publication. He never suggested or saw the need to
revise the book later. He now understands the book as a book about discipleship, as he
understands everything in Korsvei as being about discipleship. Like Ree Sunde he does not
think that the issue is “lost in translation”.
The question “why does an organization implement discipleship to strategies?” can
and should be raised. One part of the answer is the positive effects organizations assume
discipleship to create. There is however a fragility in discipleship in strategies – it seems to
depend on persistent advocates in order to be introduced, but also in order to remain as part of
strategy. Even the most self-declared discipleship-organization will default to other types of
languages as soon as the advocate has let go of the rudder. Such a default does however not
necessarily imply that the issue of discipleship disappears.
4.3.2 When toned down in organizational strategies: The segregation effect
Now we turn to the counterpart to the previous question: how do informants reason about why
and how discipleship vocabulary is occasionally dismissed from organizational strategy? In
this section we want to inquire more into organizations with a history of using discipleship at
a strategic level, but for whatever reason have chosen to omit it from their present official
documents. We want to hear more about the experiences that shaped such a development or
shift. Working with official documents in preparation for the interviews made me realize this.
259
Korsvei, Veivisere. The annual report (with a frequency of only 0.08%) also deviates but for more natural
reasons. Management language is different from ideological language.
156
Formulations in outdated documents as well as remains of outdated strategies in presently
valid documents suggested that three of the organizations in the sample would fall into this
category (Norges KFUK-KFUM, Trosopplæringen, Norges unge katolikker). This relates to
the following findings in chapter 3:
(a) The documents of Norges KFUK-KFUM quoted the so-called “Paris basis” twice.
This basis was first adopted by the founding World Conference of YMCA in 1855, and has
repeatedly been affirmed by the World Council. It states that “The Young Men’s Christian
Associations seek to unite those young men who (…) desire to be his [Jesus’] disciples in
their faith and in their life”. That discipleship vocabulary played a part, arguably a central part,
in the heritage of this organization came as a surprise. Not even my informant was aware that
her international organization was founded upon such formulations.260
(b) The Plan for Christian Education (2010) of Trosopplæringen replaced the Plan and
Handbook for Confirmation (1988) in the Church of Norway. In these outdated plans a
concept of discipleship-pedagogy was developed. The plan presents discipleship-pedagogy as
the central educational concept and discipleship vocabulary saturates the language. The
informant seemed aware of this shift.261
(c) In the Roman Catholic Church, discipleship vocabulary was revitalized in official
doctrines in the aftermath of Vatican II. It remains doctrine to this day – officially. As said
before: I recruited Norges unge katolikker out of the expectation that their official documents
would reflect this. But neither the documents nor the informant seemed aware of the Vatican
II return to discipleship.262
The three cases are different, yet they tell a similar story. At some point, some
organizations used discipleship vocabulary to formulate the strategic centerpiece of their valid
resolutions. But over time, something happened and today the organization’s documents are
moderate to low in their frequency of discipleship vocabulary. As I was aware of this prior to
the interviews, I asked all three informants rather extensively about their reasons for
abandoning discipleship vocabulary in their present documents. Much of what they answered
is already reported on in chapter 3. At first glance they seem to ground their positions rather
differently from one another.
For Firing Hvambsal (Norges KFUK-KFUM) it is all about communication. For
Norges KFUK-KFUM, she says, it is not important to maintain a certain language or jargon,
260
See 3.4 for more
See 3.3 for more
262
See 3.5 for more
261
157
just because it is part of the organization’s heritage. She rather wants to maintain a focus on
our time and contemporary needs. If discipleship vocabulary worked well in communication
today, she would be happy to use it. But as for now she sees the impending danger of
becoming linguistically isolated from everyday language in society. “The more we distance
our language from the average of Norwegian local youths, the more distanced we become
ourselves,” she claims. In her eyes straightforward and honest communication becomes
harder with discipleship vocabulary: “You would have to know why and when to use such a
language”. It is significant for her that the vocabulary of the organization enables youths to
take part in it. But one more thing is of equal importance; that ordinary young people find it
as easy to take part in society with the language of the organization as with any other
language. For everything in the world, she wants to avoid creating a gap between insiders and
outsiders.
In Trosopplæringen there has been a more deliberate move away from discipleship
vocabulary on a strategic level. The shift is also closer in time. Consequently Wirgenes had
more knowledge and reflection about how this was once important to them – and why it now
has been important to dismiss it. The problem has not been theology as such, but rather
strategy and education. Trosopplæringen is, as we have seen, greatly indebted to a specific
and expanded concept of learning. It includes far more than mere transmission of knowledge.
Learning takes place when and whenever people share, hence the title of the curriculum “God
gives – we share”. Young and old take part in this sharing on equal terms. Hence, Wirgenes is
critical of any educational model that implies a transmission of knowledge. For him it is
important to maintain that knowledge is produced in interaction – without predefined roles of
senders and receivers. These, for him, outdated educational structures are exactly what he
finds in discipleship relationships. Having said this, Wirgenes makes an important distinction.
Discipleship in the Bible has less of these unfortunate structures compared with what
discipleship has become in church tradition. In his understanding, discipleship carries power
structures that belong to another age. Discipleship contributes to keeping authority in the
hands of the few – “masters” if you will – while “learners” are trapped further down the
hierarchy. I tried during the interview to get him to talk about experiences with the old
discipleship-pedagogy of the Church of Norway, something he seemed to avoid. He did
however emphasize the confidence he now sees in young people taking part in learning
situations in the church. As opposed to previous times, he contends, young people now dare to
ask questions, they challenge, and openly explore the sacred in ways earlier generations never
158
would have dared to. He sees this development as precious and worth safeguarding at any cost.
Discipleship, which he believes implies asymmetrical learning relationships, could threaten
this.
Discipleship vocabulary in the Roman Catholic Church has been used to develop
theology, ethics and spirituality in a number of different ways in recent decades. The
ecclesiology following Vatican II is just one of many examples.263 That Gran Martinsen is
unaware of these developments is not at all surprising. The Catholic Church is by far the
largest and most diverse in the world. When asked about why discipleship was dismissed
from Norges unge katolikker’s official documents, she grounded this primarily in more or less
educated assumptions. Her main objection was that discipleship would bring divisions into
the church. To have a self-understanding of being a disciple is to think one is somewhat
elevated above the rest. To her, being a disciple indicates a type of self-ascribed holiness –
alienating to the majority.264 Like Wirgenes she also wants to minimize the distance between
leaders and youth, but even more importantly, she wants to eliminate any threat to the unity
among ordinary churchgoers.
In these three informants we meet different kinds of reasoning. They do however share
common ground in that they believe discipleship to have a segregating effect. Firing
Hvambsal is afraid it will produce an unnecessary gap between people inside and outside the
organization. Wirgenes fears the segregation of people in different roles and generations.
Gran Martinsen sees the danger of creating divisions within the church and among church
members. They ascribe this unwanted side effect to power issues embedded in the very
concept of discipleship vocabulary. Although discipleship vocabulary clearly served their
organizations’ purposes at a given time in history, it does not any more. Therefore, they have
over time developed alternatives through more or less articulated operant theologies and
organizational culture that may serve the organization and its members better.
The interviews do not give access to the arguments that once made these three
organizations change and shift their use of discipleship. What we do have are the executives’
hindsight perception and reflections of why it happened. The negative effects they assume
263
To demonstrate some of the range, compare for instance the spirituality perspective of Karl Rahner with the
feminist perspective of Schüssler Fiorenza: Karl Rahner, Spiritual writings, ed. Philip Endean (Maryknoll, NY:
Orbis Books, 2004); Fiorenza, Discipleship of equals: A critical feminist ekklesia-logy of liberation.
264
To me, a really interesting observation was made a year or two after the interview. In its 2013 yearbook
Norges unge katolikker has started to use discipleship vocabulary! I do not ascribe this sudden shift to the
interview I had with Gran Martinsen. More likely is the fact that World Youth Day was held in Rio with the
theme “Go make disciples!” A third more likely reason is that the author(s) of the yearbook this year happened
to be people acquainted with discipleship vocabulary.
159
discipleship vocabulary to have exclude the possibility of bringing discipleship vocabulary
back into the documents. In these examples there is therefore what I understand as a
pragmatic negotiation of past and present, doctrine and practice. As much as they admit that
discipleship vocabulary in some situations could evoke some beauty and have some potential,
the inevitable negative social effects at large are perceived as greater. Against these assumed
and imagined negative effects, the custom of using discipleship vocabulary is appraised and
found wanting.
Some theological words, despite being strange to lay people, are for some reason
found too important to discard. Some words are in constant need of reinterpretation and
contextualization in order to give meaning. Discipleship, for these three organizations, is not
in this category. For them, discipleship vocabulary is not worth struggling with. It is beyond
repair. But will the unwanted side effects thereby disappear, if only the problematic
vocabulary is dismissed? What is the relation between language and effect? That question will
have to remain open. But I must admit, I highly doubt it will. In the last chapter we saw
examples of discipleship in other words, in the best of health, just without the vocabulary.
This being the case, we also have to assume that the unwanted side effects of discipleship
could remain and prosper even after the vocabulary is dismissed. The side effects are
probably not connected to the vocabulary itself. Divisions, power structures, and hierarchies
might just as well come in different shapes or forms next time around. To dismiss discipleship
vocabulary from strategy could be seen as a kind of linguistic programming of organizations
that might lead to a short-term reduction of friction. In that event the real danger is to
oversimplify the real and deep roots of the unwanted side effects. They might be of that kind
that anyhow will reach the surface in due time.
4.3.3 When involved in negotiation: effects on the shaping of organizational identity and
image?
During the pre-study I established a set of descriptors; quantified properties of organizational
characteristics, which I intended to use in a mixed-method analysis. This approach would
later prove to be methodologically deficient on the whole.265 But I found only a very limited
correlation between the descriptors (such as age, size, international relations, number of
employees, finances, etc.) and the use of discipleship vocabulary. The distribution seemed
coincidental throughout the sample – as one would anticipate with a very limited data set.
265
See 1.5.3 for an account of why I chose to omit this approach.
160
A couple of descriptors did however often seem to appear together with the use of
discipleship vocabulary. Without claiming any correlational relationship, I make this
observation the starting point of this chapter on the effect of discipleship vocabulary when
involved in strategic negotiation of organizational identity and image.
Although organizational size did not seem to influence the use of discipleship
vocabulary, membership strategy did. Korsvei and Ungdom i Oppdrag are different in many
ways. But besides being two of the most frequent users of discipleship vocabulary in the
sample, they also share a strategy of not keeping track of members. They seem to value the
dynamics associated with relational belonging of organizational fluidity. Laget, currently a
membership organization, has an outspoken ambition of morphing into a member-less
movement – with the help of discipleship vocabulary.266 Adding to this; towards the low-end
of the discipleship vocabulary frequency spectrum we find four devoted membershiporganizations. KRIK, Norges unge katolikker, Changemaker, and Norges KFUK-KFUM are
different in many ways, but are all membership organizations and have low frequency of
discipleship vocabulary. As the government’s financial support to Norwegian youth
organizations is based on membership numbers, there is literally a price to pay for being an
organization that does not register its members. This could indicate some relationship
between discipleship, membership, and the need for state funding – but to indicate some kind
of correlation beyond that would be speculation.
A similar pattern appears regarding employment. The general tendency is that the lowand moderate-frequency organizations want to hire more staff – some are already in the
process – while the high-frequency organizations seem to embrace downsizing. The
willingness to hire paid staff does not seem to correlate with financial capability alone – it is
also ideologically motivated. While Ungdom i Oppdrag is extreme in the way that all fulltime workers are self-sufficient in finding financial support, others express the need and
desire to “travel lighter”. They seek to be member-driven, not staff-driven, organizations.
Yet another descriptor suggests a tendency in a similar direction. All organizations in
the sample organize either individual members, groups of members, or activities. It seems as
if these are not entirely coincidentally balanced across the sample. The high-frequency
organizations have a tendency towards organizing individual members. The low-frequency
organizations relate primarily to (local) groups of members, while the moderate-frequency
organizations are most inclined to organize activities.
266
Laget, "Fra Organisasjon til bevegelse. Lagets strategiplan 2012-2016."
161
A typical high-frequency organization, then, is a collaboration of committed
individual non-members with a small central office and superstructure. The typical lowfrequency organization has formalized membership, which makes possible a professionalized
central staff to follow up the local groups, the bedrock of the organization. There are of course
exceptions from this pattern. Whereas Misjonsforbundet Ung, for instance, has formalized
memberships together with a great concern for local groups, KRIK and Changemaker
encourage individuals to act on their own initiative. Still I think the description is somewhat
fitting. Discipleship vocabulary appeals to organizations holding the individual over the
communal, commitment over membership, and decentralized initiative over professionalized
bureaucracy.
This is a clue to the next chapter, which highlights certain implications for youth
ministry. But it is also a background for understanding the role of discipleship vocabulary on
a strategic level when organizational identity and organizational image is negotiated. The
terms “organizational identity” and “organizational image” are in this context borrowed from
a model on organizational leadership by Jo Hatch and Majken Schultz.267
In this model “Top Management Vision and Leadership” is understood as “the
intertwined symbolic texture” of “organizational culture” and “external context”.
Organizational identity is here part of the organizational culture, and is shaped in dialectic
dialogue between Top Management Vision and Leadership and members’ work experiences.
Organizational image, however, is part of the external context, in a conversation between Top
Management Vision and Leadership and experiences of external groups. At some point in the
Top Management Vision and Leadership, the interests of organizational identity and the
interests of organizational image overlap. Hatch and Schultz claim that although concepts
derive from various theoretical disciplines and have traditionally focused on different
constituencies of the organization, organizational image and identity are “symbolic, valuebased constructions that are becoming increasingly intertwined.”
267
Mary Jo Hatch and Majken Schultz, “Relations between organizational culture, identity and image,”
European Journal of Marketing 31, no. 5 (1997).
162
F IG U R E 7: H A T C H A N D S C H U L T Z ’ M O D E L O F T O P M A N A G E M E N T V IS IO N A N D L E A D ER S H IP .
Illustration (facsimile): Hatch and Schultz, 1997: 361.
As much as this model could be contested, it understands the strategic level of an
organization as obliged to negotiate organizational identity and organizational image. As a
theoretical perspective this resonated with what informants expressed about considerations of
the internal and external utility of discipleship vocabulary. In some organizations discipleship
vocabulary had become a device to frame a particular kind of communal identity (adherence
to a movement) over another (enrollment in an organization). In other organizations
discipleship vocabulary was omitted for the sake of organizational image.
Chapter 3 described, for instance, how some informants understood their use of
discipleship vocabulary related to organizational image, as they expressed the importance of
communicating with specific external groups. Holm (KRIK) underlined again and again how
urgent it was to minimize the distance felt in relation to actors in the sporting world: athletes,
leaders and the like. Firing Hvambsal (Norges KFUK-KFUM) spoke about “ordinary youth”
and “un-churched youth” and “members” as one and the same thing. Wirgenes
(Trosopplæringen) did not speak of their primary target group as external, but in a way that
resembled this, in the sense that all who had been baptized, especially those not regularly
attending youth ministry, were now included. These three informants did not for a single
moment lose sight of their “external context” during the interviews. This made organizational
image, credibility and reputation immensely important. The absence of discipleship
vocabulary in these organizations was related to this. They all saw it as a device that would
weaken their organizational image and create an unnecessarily large gap to these important
target groups.
Chapter 3 also demonstrated how some informants related their use of discipleship
vocabulary to organizational identity. Some believed it did not work. Gran Martinsen (Norges
163
unge katolikker) thought it created divisions within the unity. Nilsen Rotevatn (Changemaker)
did not consider it as members could come from any faith or none. On the other hand,
informants representing the high-frequency organizations; Laget, Misjonsforbundet Ung, and
Ungdom i Oppdrag, thought it was good for organizational identity indeed – and therefore
made use of it.
For some organizations, therefore, it seems as if the use of discipleship vocabulary is
involved in pragmatic negotiation of organizational image and organizational identity. In
organizations working inside-out, organizational identity seems to trump organizational image.
In outside-in structured organizations, organizational image seems to have the last word over
identity.268 How one regards the effect of discipleship vocabulary in this prime context seems
decisive for the use of discipleship vocabulary in the organization as such. I think this is
partly the explanation to why organizations seem to either use discipleship vocabulary a lot,
or hardly at all.
There is, however, yet another interesting observation to make in all of this. Some
organizations try not to be either an inside-out organizations favoring organizational identity,
or an outside-in organization, favoring organizational image. Some try to hold the two
together. The two prominent examples of this are KRIK and Korsvei. In these, the use of
discipleship vocabulary has designated domains where it works. Other domains are kept free
of discipleship vocabulary. In Korsvei, official documents are regarded as a domain for
discipleship vocabulary – in KRIK they are not. In KRIK, on the contrary, preaching at a
festival is regarded a domain for discipleship vocabulary, while in Korsvei discipleship
vocabulary does not belong to the first language of festivals.
There is reason to believe that this again is connected to the assessments in the
organization about official documents and festivals, whether or not they predominantly
contribute to organizational identity or organizational image.
4.4
Preliminary summary: Discipleship as pragmatic phenomenon
For the analysis in this section I have drawn on Morris’ threefold definition of the pragmatic
task: origin, uses and effects.
268
Pete Ward distinguished between two types of youth ministry: What he called inside-out involves starting
with the congregational/organizational core of youth before reaching out. His outside-in approach to youth
ministry begins with a mission mindset, starting with youth and cultures outside church/organization and
engaging them in some form. Pete Ward, Youthwork and the mission of God. Frameworks for relational
outreach. (London: SPCK, 1997).
164
I have argued that the use of discipleship vocabulary on a strategic level in Norwegian
Christian youth organizations could be understood as a composition, or a remix of various
sources of inspiration. By combining excerpts distilled from a potentially countless number of
theological discourses the creative process of composing a specific understanding of
discipleship takes place.
In the material five unique uses of discipleship vocabulary were identified. Informants
towards the low end of the frequency spectrum used discipleship vocabulary predominantly as
a reference to the twelve and as a model of ideals. The informants from high-frequency
organizations were overrepresented using discipleship vocabulary for a mode of spirituality
and for a method of influencing. It also appeared as a marker of modification – entrusted to the
linguistic instinct of each informant and context. Those attributing positive connotations to
discipleship vocabulary used it as something like a branding buzzword. For others it was
rather a negative vocabulary, greatly in need of modification.
This chapter has also described how discipleship vocabulary is either introduced to or
dismissed from organizational strategies based on the assumed effects of such a linguistic
shift. Persistent advocates seem to be a prerequisite for discipleship vocabulary to remain
present in organizational strategies. Further, discipleship vocabulary is evidently in use as a
linguistic strategic device, involved in the negotiation of (external) organizational image with
(internal) organizational identity.
To summarize, it is tempting to do a twist on a well-known book title. Eugene
Peterson has called his acclaimed discipleship book A long obedience in the same direction.269
On a strategic level in Norwegian Christian youth organizations, however, a more fitting
description of discipleship could perhaps be “A temporary obedience in a new direction” (!).
A sense of temporariness and newness in relation to discipleship will also be the impression
from the next two analytical chapters on implications for youth ministry and theology.
269
Eugene H. Peterson, A long obedience in the same direction: Discipleship in an instant society (Downers
Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1980).
165
166
5
IMPLICATIONS FOR YOUTH MINISTRY
This chapter seeks to locate the use of discipleship vocabulary on a strategic level in
Norwegian Christian youth organizations within the larger field of youth ministry. The
underlying question is to what extent discipleship vocabulary is in fact an indication (a code)
for a particular kind of youth ministry, and in that case, what kind of ministerial tendency the
use of discipleship vocabulary indicates?
Over the last decades, youth ministry has developed into an academic discipline and a
research field of its own.270 As a field it is often compared with Christian education,
sometimes mistaken for Christian education, and by some even reckoned as a sub-discipline
of religious education.271 A more fitting understanding, I would argue, is to locate youth
ministry within the wider body of practical theology. Despite its emerging interest in
empirical methodology in youth ministry research, it is fundamentally theological in aim and
reference. A typical youth ministry study is an interdisciplinary one, drawing on resources
from theology as well as neighboring disciplines in humanities and social sciences etc., but
with a special interest in theological problems and implications related to youth work in
church.272
Initially I did not intend to write this chapter. None of the questions in the interview
guide, for instance, related directly to the field of youth ministry. But as I was coding and
analyzing, some of the central discussions and focal points that have developed in youth
ministry research kept on reoccurring in various forms in my material. This was particularly
obvious when it came to assumptions regarding ecclesiology (5.1), educational purpose (5.2),
and relational ministry (as mentoring) (5.3). My approaches to these assumptions are
therefore very much “from below”. I try to describe how the informants understand them. In
this process of systematically following their assumptions on these topics it became
increasingly clear to me that use of discipleship vocabulary on the strategic organizational
level in Norway relates to some basic ecclesiological, organizational, and educational
positions more than others. These are elements that all belong in the youth ministry discourse.
270
For a good overview of youth ministry research, see for instance Bert Roebben, “International developments
in youth ministry research: A comparative review,” Religious Education: The Official Journal of the Religious
Education Association 107, no. 2 March-April (2012).
271
Michael J. Anthony, Introducing Christian education: Foundations for the twenty-first century (Grand Rapids,
MI: Baker Academic, 2001), 217ff.
272
In this I position myself alongside Root and Dean, The theological turn in youth ministry.
167
5.1
Ecclesiological assumptions: the lean towards sodality
Youth in church and youth work in church are among the central recurring themes in youth
ministry.273 It is commonly accepted that part of what has driven the emergence of youth
ministry since the 1960s is an agenda of giving youth status and full participation in churches.
For some, replacing the term “youth work” with the term “youth ministry” is a code for this
very idea.274
In the material I found two informants particularly plugging into the topic of
ecclesiology: Fagermoen (Laget) and Wirgenes (Trosopplæringen). Both represent
organizations that traditionally have been seen as part of the Church of Norway. Contrary to
what happened in most of the neighboring countries, awakenings in Norway in the nineteenth
and twentieth centuries did not result in many new denominations. Here, these impulses
brought about new organizations that for the most part remained loyal to and within the
Church of Norway. For this reason the Church of Norway is often understood as an ellipse
with two focal points: the prayer houses coming out of an awakening tradition and the parish
churches with a more folk-church theology. Concerning youth work, there has been a wellfunctioning division of labor for decades. Local churches have taken care of baptism and
confirmation, while youth work has often been run by, or in collaboration with, the many
organizations within the church. With the reform of Christian education this division of labor
is challenged, as we shall see.
I have structured this chapter as a comparative case study of what these two
informants said, trying to identify the central points in their argumentation. What becomes
clear is that these two organizations diverge on central points along their lines of argument:
how they understand their challenge from society (5.1.1), how they envision organizing
gatherings in response to this (5.1.2), how they view intergenerational relationships (5.1.3),
and how they organize churches (5.1.4).
In chapters 2 and 3 it became clear that Laget has not until recently been using
discipleship vocabulary, but now is about to do so on a large scale. In Trosopplæringen, the
shift has gone in the opposite direction – from a lot to a little. In the following I will listen to
273
See for instance: Mark H. Senter III. et al., Four views of youth ministry and the church: Inclusive
congregational, preparatory, missional, strategic (Grand Rapids, MI: Youth Specialties, 2001). Kenda Creasy
Dean, Practicing passion: Youth and the quest for a passionate church (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2004);
Church of England, Youth a part: Young people and the church (London: National Society/Church House
Publishing, 1996).
274
Merton P. Strommen and Richard A. Hardel, Passing on the faith: A radical new model for youth and family
ministry (Winona, MN: Saint Mary’s Press, 2000), 195.
168
the informants’ use of discipleship vocabulary in relation to each diverging point, before
drawing some concluding remarks in section 5.1.5.
5.1.1 Folk vs. Flock
Both executives recognize their organization’s main challenge as a shortage of faith among
young people. They do however assess this shortage rather differently, which is possibly why
they also respond to it differently.
Trosopplæringen articulates its response in quantitative terms. Its goal is to deliver 315
hours of Christian education for at least 70% of all baptized children in Norway within their
first eighteen years. The challenge is in itself impressive, unique, and to me, occasionally
overwhelming. The vast impact area of this program for natural reasons sets some restraints
on how the program is carried out on a local level. Sporadic and short-term events are added
to already working institutionalized practices like baptism, confirmation etc. The proposed
315 hours of organized Christian education is a significant number. Critics would still find
315 hours of Christian education distributed over eighteen years too unambitious compared
with weekly activities in traditional children and youth ministry. One should not forget,
however, that Trosopplæringen is not there to respond to a shortage of faith among children
from Christian families. Their aim is the majority of all baptized people, most of whom never
attend for regular children or youth ministry. These are the ones that require attention, loyalty
and commitment. If we want to understand the educational context of Trosopplæringen, we
must understand the radical ambition of having the vast majority of Norwegian youths as the
primary target group.
In Laget we also find a passion to respond to a lack of faith among youths. When the
informant from Laget talks about this challenge, he does so in qualitative terms and
metaphors. Fagermoen worries that Christian education has become shallower recently. In his
organization he calls for a renewed attention towards maturity and depth in the faith of youth.
He thereby understands his primary target group as those who actually show up. In his
perspective, these are the key people, the future agents of faith, who in turn will bring faith
into the wider society, schools, and campuses.
Most interestingly, both informants understand their stance in this question in reaction
to the other: A great concern for Wirgenes in Trosopplæringen is not to settle for only
reaching a few through traditional youth ministry. He envisions a new kind of Christian
education for all baptized. During the interview he repeatedly distanced his pedagogical
169
program from what he calls “faith collectives”275, settled groups of already believing youth.
He sees the potential for traditional and regular youth ministry to contribute in the new
Christian education, but this would demand a dramatic shift on their side. As of today the
“faith collectives” represent a challenge, something he expresses in a subtle way:
Youth ministry in church has really been marked by fellowships. And this is good. We need
that. Really. (…) At the same time these fellowship soon become groups of people that look a
bit alike. Thereby they have become sociocultural groups parallel to other groups that youth
choose. (…) To find suitable places for a somewhat broader life of faith has been hard for the
church. Not even Trosopplæringen has helped sufficiently in this. Many congregations are still
searching. We are aware that the tension I repeatedly keep talking about is sometimes
experienced as a critique of one side, in particular, the faith collective.
We need permanent fellowships that provide good framing and fellowship for youth who
believe in and follow Jesus, that seek together, but at the same time we as a church have to
think of church as something that is always bigger. How do we create space and room for
nurturing the faith for all baptized?
Fagermoen on his side refers to the same tension, but from a different perspective. His
organization once had a central seat in the youth ministry strategies in the Church of Norway.
Now, things have changed, he feels. Trosopplæringen has entered the stage – and due to the
organizational size, financial abilities, and innovative strategies, they have thus received most
of the attention. According to Fagermoen, the future strategies of Laget should be understood
as attempts at finding new ways forward in relation to the new situation Trosopplæringen has
created. It seems difficult for him, coming from traditional youth ministry, to let go of the
thought that any proper youth ministry should take its starting point with and through already
dedicated believers.
Trosopplæringen has triggered many Christian organizations, and in particular the Church of
Norway to focus even more on activities for the many. (…) This is really good, but we need
something more than activities for the many. I have repeatedly said to the people in
Trosopplæringen that what we really need to organize is something that goes deeper, activities
for the few.
Both organizations are motivated by a seemingly similar challenge: to respond to a
lack of faith in young people. Fagermoen is concerned about the quality – the lack of depth
and the level of maturity among Christian youth. Wirgenes is concerned about the quantity –
the lacking ability of the church in the past to introduce the broader masses of Norwegians to
the faith they are baptized into. They both feel the tension, and understand their context in
relation to the other. We could differentiate the two by the following simplification:
Trosopplæringen’s challenge is “some for all”, while Laget’s challenge is “all for some”.
275
A term he has borrowed, I assume, from Knut Lundby, “Troskollektivet: En studie i folkekirkens oppløsning i
Norge” (Universitetsforlaget, 1987).
170
5.1.2 Events vs. fellowships
The difference in view on the challenge has consequences for how youth gatherings in a
church or Christian setting should be organized.
Trosopplæringen has in its reform added new language to church life in Norway. One
such term is what is called “short-term open activities” (in Norwegian: breddetiltak – literally,
width initiatives). This is contrasted to the type of gatherings one would find in traditional
youth ministry, what in the plan is called “long-term work” or “permanent work”. The way
they set up gatherings is in logical extension to their understanding of the challenge: frequent
gatherings are for the few, short-term open activities are for the many. Wirgenes explains the
background this way:
The term “everyone” has been a main challenge in [our strategy]. This is a very radical
challenge because we so quickly become satisfied with the 5, 10 or 15 % that for different
reason choose the youth group as their group of identity. This means that Trosopplæringen has
been persistent towards the congregations in adhering to wideness in their thinking.
Fagermoen’s point of departure, however, does not start with the many. His strategy
begins with a few, but due to multiplication, in turn it will reach the many. Fagermoen
envisions smaller, warmer and more committed gatherings as a vital part of the new strategy
of Laget:
I cannot save everyone, but I can start something I really believe in. Greg Ogden says it is not
possible to reach one’s goals through monologues for 100 people at the time. A speech series
cannot achieve the same as the small group. I believe he is right. I come from a movement that
believed one could reach this through preaching.
Fagermoen’s firm belief in small groups entails a triple critique. Firstly, it is in line
with much of the youth ministry literature, which suggests a move from activity-based
(hyped) youth ministry to relational (authentic) ministry.276 Secondly, this is partly said in
opposition to his own prayer-house tradition – a movement where preaching the word from
the pulpit has always been crucial. And thirdly I hear his emphasis on small groups against
Trosopplæringen’s “short-term open activities”. Fagermoen is so convinced about this
strategy that he does not mind a temporary loss of public visibility and attention.
We do not want to hide or disappear, although this might be a risk when making a few solid
foundations. (…) Many want to go after the masses, be present at all places and be everywhere,
make festivals, be on TV, be big, reach the masses, reach everyone. But do they really [reach
them]? What is our contribution when we dilute what we have? Laget’s role is to become a
movement that makes disciples on a grand scale, or actually, in small scale to start with.
276
See for instance Kenda Creasy Dean and Ron Foster, The godbearing life: The art of soul tending for youth
ministry (Nashville, TN: Upper Room Books, 1998).
171
Wirgenes and Fagermoen disagree how gatherings for youth should be set up. They
both see a link between their understandings of the challenge to the way their gatherings
should be organized. They talk about the other organization as an example of a position
opposing their own.
Personally, I do however think they are both reacting – not to each other as of today,
but to the joint youth ministry of parish church and prayer house and in the past. I would say
that they have both moved, and that their real opponent is a traditional way of doing youth
ministry. Traditional youth ministry has always negotiated and blended events, activities,
relationships, and commitment. Now they both seem to find this mix deficient for their
purpose. Wirgenes is pulled towards the open events, Fagermoen towards the committed
fellowship.
5.1.3 Symmetry vs. asymmetry
Research on children and youth has traditionally been conducted from one of two
perspectives: biology or culture. One tradition talks about adolescence as a particular lifephase, most commonly connected to puberty and psychosocial development etc. In a lifephase perspective adolescence is often contrasted to childhood on one side and adulthood on
the other. The alternative perspective has viewed youth and youth culture as a generational
phenomenon. One talks about builders, baby-boomers, Generation X, Y, and Z, etc. In such a
view youth is often understood in light of past youth cultures.277 In a life-phase perspective
“intergenerational” relationships consist of adults and adolescents. In a generational
perspective, however, actors from two different cultures relate. The choices made at this point
become normative for how we understand youth ministry. Seen from a life-phase perspective,
the adult often becomes the experienced one, having lived the longest, and thereby in many
respects superior to the adolescent. In a generational perspective, however, it might as well be
a youth having the upper hand, representing the latest and most relevant cultural competence.
Much more could be said about this, but this is sufficient to exemplify some of the complexity
involved in assessing intergenerational relationships.
As we again turn to Fagermoen and Wirgenes, we find them also approaching these
issues rather differently. Fagermoen has set up his own discipleship group in a way that
deliberately preserves asymmetrical learning relationships. He, being in his forties, has invited
two others, one in his thirties and one in his twenties to meet up once a week. Without ever
277
See for instance Anna-Liisa Närvänen and Elisabet Näsman, “Childhood as generation or life phase?” Young:
Nordic journal of youth research 12, no. 1 (2004).
172
saying so, it seems as if Fagermoen works from a life-phase perspective. Implied in much of
what he says is the assumption that Christian faith is transferred from one “generation” to the
next through their being together. Having set up a group allowing for authentic conversation,
one should not understand the transmission of Christian faith as being a one-sided monologue
or lecture. It is in his mind very much in contrast to preaching from a pulpit. Authentic
conversation is crucial to understanding the role of intergenerational relationships in Laget.
He gives several examples of how he, being the oldest, has learnt something from the two
younger ones:
I need the challenge from the twenty year old in my disciple group. He always says: “I am
angry at my parents for never having read the Bible so I could see and showed that they were
in need for personal devotion”. Stuff like that challenges me to be a better dad for my own
children while they still are young. I want to be challenged in the way I spend my time.
Fagermoen argues also that youths need adults in their lives. Adults should strive for
being more than peers and equal conversation-partners. At their best, they are experienced
guides in the life with God. He believes life is more challenging for youth today than ever
before: and sees in this complexity an increased need for adults in the life of young people “in
order to navigate” sufficiently. Fagermoen was the first of the informants that put words to a
deep longing for intergenerational relationships – not only on behalf of his youth, but also in
his own life. It would later become apparent that a majority of the informants shared this
personal longing (See 5.3 for more).
TEF:
I experience more mature Christians when I travel abroad. Then I often meet people I
really would like to follow. In Norway I hardly see any I would like to follow. It’s a
bit strange.
Q:
What does seeing people you like to follow do to you?
TEF: I don’t know what it does to me. But I really think this should be the standard situation,
that 50 year olds should have ten more years of experience than me in walking with
God. I want to ask them about deep stuff. But I haven’t spotted many. I have possibly
not searched long enough. They are possibly there. Maybe I am just an angry young
man without contact with reality.
Intergenerational relationships are articulated in Trosopplæringen as well. But here,
symmetry, mutuality and reciprocal exchange are key values. The plan for Christian education
makes this point explicit: “Who is the ‘pupil’ and who is the ‘teacher’ will vary according to
how those taking part in the learning process interact with one another”.278 Wirgenes
278
The quote is from the English version accessible on the internet:
www.kirken.no/english/news.cfm?artid=318692 Trosopplæringen, Gud gir - vi deler: plan for trosopplæring i
Den norske kirke: 7.
173
underlines this point, stating that if one of the parties in an intergenerational relationship
should be thought of as the superior, it would be the child. This has everything to do with the
rediscovery of child theology:
For me, good learning is not about elevating the teacher. I do believe employees in church,
volunteers, and young adults should have a fairly high self-understanding about their role as
mediators. But in our understanding of learning we talk about “we” understood as mutuality.
(…)
A major discussion in our reform of faith education was on the question: who is the greatest?
What this reveals is a very hierarchical model – a model which Jesus challenges in a radical
way by taking a child in his arms and saying that whoever wants to be great among you –
whoever wants to be a Rabbi – although this word is not used here directly – shall be as this
child. “Whoever receives this child, receives me, and the one who has sent me.”
[This is] a radical theological challenge that most definitely also concerns discipleship
regarding hierarchy and learning. This challenge is very explicit.
It might happen that this develops in such a radical way that in twenty years time we need to
warn against the other ditch. But it is far from the case now. I really think so. [There is] an
important educational power in legitimizing a solid “I” in children and youth for their
conquering of faith and identity.
The expression “educational power” is interesting in this respect. Child theology,
according to Wirgenes, is not only biblically sound and culturally appropriate; but the
learning outcome is even greater when the younger is affirmed and legitimized. The crucial
point for Wirgenes, the point that he repeatedly returns to, is that this way of framing learning
relationships is more coherent with the inclusive and collective understanding of faith. Child
theology is simply superior to youth ministry in this.279
Wirgenes is self-critical at one point. Child theology has not only made the
pedagogical foundation in Christian education for children, it is also brought into the entire
plan, even in the Christian education for youths. He admits he has less confidence in the
sovereignty of child theology in the formation of youths.
I have interpreted the difference between Fagermoen and Wirgenes concerning
learning relationships as a difference in perspective: in a generational approach versus a lifephase approach. Without ever stating this explicitly, Wirgenes seem to support such an
interpretation, at least in part, and aligns himself with a generational viewpoint:
[In church] the children and youth of today take ownership over the room very differently to
my generation, not to forget the generation before me. Our anxiety to express faith was and is
great. The anxiety to express oneself in a religious manner was and is privatized.
279
The rise of status and recognition of young people in church in general has for long been a chief concern in
youth ministry literature. Trosopplæringen may be more in debt to youth ministry research than it realizes.
174
Both the informants articulate the importance of learning relationships in their
organization. While Fagermoen emphasizes relational asymmetry, Wirgenes underlines the
importance or relational symmetry. To some extent both these views are connected to a
generational vs. life-phase approach to learning relationships, where the former may underpin
symmetry, while the latter asymmetry.
5.1.4 Modality vs. sodality
In this chapter I have followed the line of arguments of Fagermoen and Wirgenes, as they
expressed important points in their organizations’ strategies. It is obvious that they
fundamentally differ in how they describe (a) the challenge they face, (b) the way to gather
youths, and (c) the role of learning relationships. This is exciting stuff, as both organizations
have recently changed their strategies, somewhat sharpened their swords, and are in the
process of implementation. In the process of having done so, it occurs to me that they are
from a starting point within a shared ellipse model of church; they are now drifting further
apart.
In order to understand these two informants better in a wider context, I propose to
draw on Ralph D. Winter’s two-structure theory of church. In 1970 Winter introduced the
hypothesis of the church’s double structure.280 Central to his theory was the two terms
modality and sodality – which have a much longer reception history in the church. Sodality is
often contrasted to modality – in Catholic ecclesiology used to describe monastic orders and
religious guilds etc., in Protestant ecclesiology used to describe parachurch-organizations and
missional associations etc.
Modality is in ecclesiology a term used to describe the customary ecclesiology at the
present time in a specific place: the church in which most people are born (Fr. mode = what is
customary). In Norway this would be a folk-church ecclesiology from an evangelical
Lutheran tradition. Sodality comes from the Latin root “sodalis” which translates as
“comrade”. Sodality is thus denoting groups and guilds of people that voluntarily commit to
each other (brotherhoods) in working for a special cause.281
280
Ralph D. Winter and R. Pierce Beaver, The warp and the woof: Organizing for mission (South Pasadena, CA:
William Carey Library, 1970). For the classic text on this theory, see: Ralph D. Winter, “The two structures of
God's redemptive mission,” Missiology: An International Review 2, no. 1 (1974). It has been criticized for its use
of NT (but still approved for its pragmatic functionality): Bruce K. Camp, “A theological examination of the
two-structure theory,” Missiology: An International Review 23, no. 2 (1995). Winter’s theory has lately once
again been recognized in circles inspired by missional ecclesiology. See for instance: Greg Peters, Reforming the
monastery: Protestant theologies of the religious life, New Monastic Library: Resources for Radical Discipleship
(Eugene, OR: Cascade Books, 2013), 146ff.
281
George Lings, “Why modality and sodality thinking is vital to understand future church” (2012).
175
In Winter’s two-structure theory he describes modality briefly as “a structured
fellowship in which there is no distinction of sex or age”, while “a sodality is a structured
fellowship in which membership involves an adult second decision beyond modality
membership, and is limited by either age or sex or marital status”. In this use of these terms,
both the denomination and the local congregation are modalities, while a mission agency or a
local men’s club are sodalities.282
Based on what is said above, I believe it is justifiable to claim that Trosopplæringen
has made a move towards an ecclesiology of modality while Laget has made a move in the
opposite direction, towards sodality – a description I believe both informants would recognize.
T A B L E 5: A C O M P A R IS O N O F W IR G E N E S /T R O S O P P L Æ R IN G E N A N D F A G E R M O E N /L A G E T
Wirgenes
Trosopplæringen
Challenge and Response
Lack of faith
Some for all / the many
Organized gatherings
Event
Short term
Learning relationships
Generational approach
Symmetrical
Ecclesiological structure
Modality
Fagermoen
Laget
Lack of faith
All for some / the few
Fellowship
Commitment
Life-phase approach
Asymmetrical
Sodality
5.1.5 Sodality and the use of discipleship vocabulary
What about the shift in use of discipleship vocabulary in these two organizations? Is it
entirely coincidental? I believe not. If we go back and render what both informants actually
said about Laget’s approach, they both used discipleship vocabulary to describe it. Fagermoen
saw his approach of all-for-some, fellowship with high commitment, asymmetrical learning
relationships as a shift towards discipleship, and Wirgenes did the same.
I do not generalize at this point, stating that all use of discipleship vocabulary is a
move towards sodality – I do however believe that in the case of Laget, it is. And I do believe
the opposite shift in Trosopplæringen is suggesting a move towards modality. The
introduction of discipleship in Laget could be interpreted as a sign of a move towards sodality,
282
Winter, “The two structures of God's redemptive mission,” 127.
176
I would argue, while the dismissal of discipleship in the strategies of Trosopplæringen as a
sign of a move towards modality.
To add support for this claim I consulted the rest of the sample as well. How well does
such a description fit with what we find in the remaining organizations? Can we here find the
support for a relation between the use of discipleship and sodality?
First of all, let me underline that there exists no such thing as a clean version of
organizational sodality or modality, at least not in the sample. Any organization is more or
less indebted to both, yet often more to one than the other. For this reason the following
cataloguing could and should be questioned. I still think it is fair to say that some
organizations are more marked by the properties of either modality or sodality than others, but
this is a difference in degree, not nature or essence.
Within the sample I would say five of the organizations lean towards modality.
Trosopplæringen is by far the most obvious, and I have made the case for this earlier. I also
find KRIK, Norges unge katolikker, Norges KFUK-KFUM and Changemaker having their
preferences in the same direction, but these are less obvious. They all have a strong inclusive
ideology that shows in different ways: KRIK by being highly culturally sensitive and relevant,
Norges KFUK-KFUM by its strong tie to the Church of Norway and emphasis on low
threshold, Changemaker by downgrading the faith dimension and upgrading the social side of
diakonia and activism, and Norges unge katolikker by being part of the great Roman catholic
church.
There are strong arguments for placing Changemaker and Norges unge katolikker
more towards sodality. In Changemaker you would find strong traces of intentional urgency,
which often is connected to sodality. You would also find a rather strong sense of
comradeship; in the words of Nilsen Rotevatn, very few things are based on individual
initiative in Changemaker. When it comes to Norges unge katolikker, it is fully justifiable, I
think, to argue that it represents sodality as much as modality. The organization is highly
influenced by monastic spirituality, and besides, in Norway it is not a church for the majority.
Gran Martinsen repeatedly talked about the need to support Catholic youth feeling alone in
their local community. I would however argue that their identity and practice is even more
marked by being a part of the extensive Roman Catholic Church.
Towards the sodality side of the spectrum we find the remaining five. Two
organizations stand out as the most obvious versions of sodality: Ungdom i Oppdrag and
Substans. These are very different, but both place their emphasis on small, highly committed
177
groups. They are not afraid of doing things differently, and they are both inspired, however
differently, by monastic practice. Their intentional urgency (missional in Ungdom i Oppdrag
and ascetic/activist in Substans) is obvious.
Much of what is said about Substans could be applied to Korsvei as well. They have
however over time grown tremendously, and their festivals now attract attendees from across
the church landscape. Through Korsvei sodality has become customary (modal) one might
say – still its spirituality most definitely belongs to the sodality side of the spectrum.
Misjonsforbundet Ung is hard to position. Again the influence is strong both ways. To me, the
decisive argument is that even the mother church, Misjonsforbundet, is in itself a rather small
free-church denomination, which has marks of sodality. I have earlier argued the case of
Laget.
To conclude: All of the organizations that lean towards modality are among the lowand moderate-frequency cases when it comes to the use of discipleship in their strategies. And
all the high-frequency case organizations have an equal pull towards sodality. Substans is the
one exception: representing clear sodality with only a moderate use of discipleship vocabulary.
This section has searched for a better understanding of the implications of the use of
discipleship vocabulary for ecclesiology in youth ministry. From the analysis there seems to
be rather strong support for the assumption that the use of discipleship vocabulary indicates a
lean towards a sodality ecclesiology.
5.2
Organizational contributions and purpose: the lean towards intentionality
Organizations want to contribute – that is their purpose – and they envision that their
contribution at large is good and necessary. What they want to contribute with, and in what
arenas, does however vary from organization to organization – also across the sample. In this
section I am interested to understand better the relationship between, on the one hand, the use
of discipleship vocabulary and on the other hand the purpose and aims of the organizations. Is
it, in what the informants said, possible to render tendencies suggesting that the use of
discipleship vocabulary is more related to some kinds of organizational contributions over
others?
Again I take a “from below” perspective on the material. I do not try to impose
theoretical categories on it. Instead I try to listen in on what the informants actually assumed,
and how they discerned between different approaches. Through the analysis I identified at
least four different ways of talking about organizational contribution, which will be described
178
in separate sub-chapters: social development (5.2.1), organizational development (5.2.2.),
identity formation (5.2.3), and intentionality (5.2.4). For every sub-chapter I describe this
assumed contribution as expressed by informants and examine how it possibly relates to the
use of discipleship vocabulary.
5.2.1 Social development: Creating citizenship through discipleship
It soon became clear that most, if not all, informants expressed a desire and the expectation
that their organization should contribute to society. Some informants are more outspoken
about this than others, but the entire sample have the confidence that their organization
produces good citizens and communities, locally to globally. The informants express that their
social responsibility and engagement is part of the reason they organized in the first place.
They find motivation in different needs within society and they interpret these needs
differently: Changemaker, Substans and Korsvei are examples of organizations with an
emphasis on fighting injustice. Norges KFUK-KFUM has its focus on poverty and the
marginalized, and Norges unge katolikker on what they call caritative work. KRIK, Laget,
Misjonsforbundet Ung, Ungdom i Oppdrag, and Trosopplæringen have diaconal projects
abroad and in Norway. All these projects contribute directly, but also more indirectly: by
involving youth in these types of projects, future citizens and leaders in society are formed.
The words of Firing Hvambsal are fitting for several of the informants:
It is for me fundamental to lead this organization with a purpose of developing Christian,
courageous, and creative people to take on responsibilities in church and society. Educating
for the church is only half of this organization’s statutory objective.
The research literature provides several studies in which discipleship is developed
with a purpose of a contributing to society, from perspectives of citizenship283, politics284, and
social justice.285 But how do the informants relate the use of discipleship vocabulary to
building society in their organization? The general impression is that they do so only in a very
modest way. Social development is not primarily motivated in discipleship, and discipleship
is not primarily motivated in building society. In some ways, this resembles what Nilsen
Rotevatn (Changemaker) said earlier on. Based on his childhood experiences, he had the
impression that the type of Christians who engage in discipleship usually withdraw from
283
Ibid.
Boys, Education for citizenship and discipleship; Slater, Tensions between citizenship and discipleship.
Jürgen Moltmann, The politics of discipleship and discipleship in politics: Jürgen Moltmann lectures in dialogue
with Mennonite scholars, ed. Willard M. Swartley (Eugene, OR: Cascade Books, 2006).
285
Yoder, The politics of Jesus: Vicit agnus noster.
284
179
engaging in society. My own impression, based on all the informants, is that the situation is
somewhat more nuanced. There are, for instance, examples of the contrary in the material:
In Korsvei, for instance, discipleship not only involves “to seek faithful relationship
with Jesus Christ”, but also “to unite with him in the fight for life in our world”. Grønvik
emphasized repeatedly in the interview that discipleship in Korsvei is a bridge between the
spiritual and the social: “discipleship is to hold together an emphasis on personal spirituality
with an emphasis on social engagement,” he said. Discipleship here involves a call to make a
move, not only on the inside, but in society as well.
A second exception I saw in what Nordli said about Ungdom i Oppdrag’s take on
discipleship related to the organization’s worldwide missional strategy “4K”. This is a global
mapping project aimed at responding to the world’s spiritual and physical needs more
strategically. The world is here divided in roughly 4,000 so-called Omega zones, hence the
name 4K, and classified in accordance to physical and spiritual needs. The vision is to “see
the world and respond to its needs”.286 Most interesting, when Nordli in the interview talked
about 4K, he did so in terms of discipleship. The task of making disciples was, in his mind,
not restricted to individuals, and not only to evangelization. He was as interested in discipling
nations, or should we say discipling Omega zones. And in this context making disciples
meant contributing to a fundamental change in society. One could of course suspect that
social awareness in 4K has a supporting function for the real task, evangelization. But I did
not find support for this in what the informant said – I found him genuinely interested in the
wellbeing of citizens and societies and he included this in his understanding of discipleship.
To contribute to society is at the heart of all the organizations in the sample, but this is
only to a small extent linked to discipleship. The use of discipleship vocabulary in terms of
social development occurs only occasionally.
5.2.2 Organizational development: Enculturation through discipleship
All the informants articulated not only the desire to develop society; the desire to develop
organizational culture was also present across the sample. Organizational culture is commonly
understood as a set of shared or desired values, assumptions, practices, and behaviors. Among
the informants I found a great will to refine their organization in a way that would help
members and others to imbibe, immerse, and adapt to the culture of that particular
organization.
286
http://4kworldmap.com/#whatis4k (April 2, 2014).
180
Enculturation in Norwegian Christian youth organizations takes on many forms:
KRIK is probably the one organization having taken the marketing challenge most seriously.
According to Holm, branding is important to KRIK – and something it has proved to be good
at. No other organization in the sample can display a more carefully designed organizational
profile, including an extensive line of clothing, training apparel and branded artifacts for any
relevant occasion – stretching from waterproof Bibles to branded water bottles. KRIK has
done a marvelous job at creating an organizational culture, image and identity in line with the
four values of the organization: joy, clarity, freedom, and pride. The branded artifacts are
there to create organizational belonging and identity. At this point KRIK has already achieved
what many others just dream of doing.
Enculturation strategies in Norges unge katolikker are rather different from KRIK, yet
equally important. But here, introducing youth to its own organizational culture is only part of
the mission. Ultimate enculturation takes place when young people find their place in the life
of the mother church. This double task of enculturation goes for several of the other
organizations as well. Gran Martinsen represented her church, the Catholic Church, with a
pride and confidence none of the other Protestants informants in the sample could match. For
her, the practices of the church were the primary devices in enculturation, and celebrating
mass was the most important among them:
SKA: The celebration of mass is a central element on camps. We celebrate mass every day.
Q:
On camps, even?
SKA: Yes, and on all of our activities, weekends and courses – and it is really important. It is
the center of everything we do, it's the reason we are here: [We want] to give youths
an understanding of the mass as something more than a rattling off of words (…). To
get a good relationship to the mass through youthful music and participation in
readings and prayer and so forth is an important part of what Norges unge katolikker
does.
In addition Gran Martinsen mentioned prayer by the hour as customary at any event.
In fact, practices from monastic spirituality play an increasing role in Norges unge
katolikker’s enculturational strategy. National board meetings and other events were often
located in monasteries, for this purpose. Monks and nuns were more and more brought along
on trips etc. They experienced that their sheer presence expanded youths’ imagination of
vocation, and contributed to genuine prayer and spiritual guidance. In Norges unge katolikker
enculturation is brought about through practices, and not through the branding of artifacts, as
in KRIK.
181
Acculturation in Trosopplæringen looks, for obvious reasons, quite different. They
have their branded artifacts, but maybe not to the extent of KRIK. And they have their
practices, but not to the extent of Norges unge katolikker. It seems however as they have
refined a third kind of enculturational device: language. This is most evident through the
emphasis on an all-inclusive “we”. To illustrate, the very beginning of the interview with
Wirgenes went like this:
Q:
How would you describe the status of the reform? Could you please elaborate on what
you have achieved, and in your mind, what remain?
PEW: What we have achieved. I use a “we” here. Not that it necessarily is that big of a
difference. I think we have achieved a broad understanding of the connection between
baptism and learning in the church – for everyone.287
The perspectives “all”, “we”, and “everyone” saturate this organization – hence the
name of the Plan: “God gives, we share”.288 This collective understanding of the educational
task is according to Wirgenes genuinely typical for this organization. “There were many
ideological fights in the shaping of the plan,” he commented. But to his surprise, “there were
never fundamental debates and disagreements concerning this collective understanding of
learning”. Trosopplæringen is unique and interesting for being the first proper example of a
youth ministry initiative in Norway that embodies consistent folk-church ideology. The “we”
of the folk church saturates all levels of the organization and could be interpreted as a
linguistic device in the purpose of making enculturation smoother.
All the informants wanted to develop their organization and to facilitate enculturation.
This outcome for members was brought about differently in the organizations, but branded
artifacts, practices, and language are parts of it. But does this, for the informants, in any way
relate to discipleship vocabulary? Considering the material, I would say it does – at least to
some extent. In the interviews with the four high-frequency organizations we find all these
three forms of enculturation present.
The disciple-cross logo of Misjonsforbundet Ung and the worldwide DTS concept of
Ungdom i Oppdrag could, for instance, be understood as elements of branded artifacts and
concepts. The DTS concept could also, together with the Korsvei’s road-grip fellowships,
Laget’s discipleship groups, and Misjonsforbundet Ung’s Disciple Pulse program, be
understood as practices. The discipleship question of Korsvei and the fresh disciple-making
strategy of Laget could also be seen as enculturational language. The fact that seven out of
287
The italics mark the actual accent of the informant.
Thorwald Lorenzen, Resurrection, discipleship, justice. Affirming the resurrection of Jesus today. (Macon,
GA: Smyth & Helwys Publishing, Inc., 2003); Gutiérrez, “Discipleship: Walking according to the spirit.”
288
182
ten organizations use discipleship vocabulary to express their objectives in the very highest
level of strategy I believe is part of the same logic.
We should however not settle with this. Although it is possible to understand the use
of discipleship vocabulary as a device in organizational development, I do think it is more
linked to other organizational contributions and purposes.
5.2.3 Identity formation: Bildung through discipleship
In addition to developing society and organizational culture, all the informants wanted to help
members form a firm and solid identity. This purpose was articulated in a number of different
ways as cultivation, edification, development, and formation of identity, etc. As a collective
term for this complex, I use the term Bildung, although not in a very specialized sense.289
From the tradition of spiritual formation we have the expression of “becoming who you are”
describing something of the same. Firing Hvambsal has already been quoted as wanting to
form “Christian, courageous and creative persons”. Norges unge katolikker is clear about its
desire to shape Catholic identity in members. In fact, any organization in the sample has
portions of this educational motif in its ambitions.
The premium example, I would say, is Substans. There are elements of both
citizenship and enculturation in the purposes Kilde Aarebrot emphasized – but not to the same
degree as identity formation. Their working strategy is to set up temporary training centers, so
called dojos, and truth experiments, where people can get into shape, Kilde Aarebrot says.
A dojo is a training center. For us it is important to call it a training-intensive [sic]. Most
mechanisms are similar in spiritual maturation as in physical education. Just as anyone can
learn to be decent marathon runner by practicing, everyone can learn to live in simplicity, or
learn to be more open-handed etc. They are skills – plain and simple. We have been very
afraid of talking about that in Christian settings. To be Christian is also like that, to practice a
number of skills.
There are two forms of “exercises” offered at the Substans gym: ascetism and activism.
These are thought of as mutually corresponding, like inhalation and exhalation. The Gospel
289
The Bildung tradition goes back to Greek Antiquity and Imago Dei imagery in the Old Testament. Today it is
associated with continental pedagogics and is therefore hard to translate properly into English. My colleague at
NLA, Stein Wivestad, has given the best attempt to date, I think, in the term upbuilding. Stein M. Wivestad,
“Conditions for ‘upbuilding’: A reply to Nigel Tubbs’ reading of Kierkegaard,” Journal of Philosophy of
Education 45, no. 4 (2011).
Gadamer, for one, understands Bildung as “the properly human way of developing one’s natural talents and
capacities”. For more, see Hans-Georg Gadamer, Truth and method, 2nd, rev. ed. translation revised by Joel
Weinsheimer and Donald G. Marshall. Wahrheit und Methode (London: Continuum, 2004), xii, 9. For Biesta
Bildung is used to contest what he thinks is a false presupposition in the humanistic tradition that education
requires a known essence of the human subject. Biesta argues that what it is to be human is and should be a
radically open question. Gert J. J. Biesta, Læring retur: Demokratisk dannelse for en menneskelig fremtid, trans.
Marie Schneekloth, vol. 100 (Copenhagen: Unge Pædagoger, 2009), 16, 95ff.
183
has its consequences inwards and outwards. In Substans the two are balanced to prevent
training from becoming egocentric, Kilde Aarebrot claims. The driving conviction is that
change to society is brought about by those people who have worked at who they are. People
become what they are through what they do, through exercise and practice, he claims – and
not the other way around. This way, everything starts with those wanting to work on who they
are. Acquiring skills is in fact, amongst other things, a development of the self.
Another very clear and somewhat different example of identity formation is found in
how Holm (KRIK) described the purpose of his then forthcoming book:290
To get to know oneself and your own deepest values, what you deep down believe – that’s
worth getting to know and to be conscious about. A great portion of the book is about selfknowledge, to get to know oneself. I believe that by getting to know yourself and what drives
you, you also get to know the Creator.291
It is not much of a surprise that youth organizations want to help young people form
their identity. To assess the way they go about doing this is beyond the scope of this study.
My curiosity is a different one: If, and in that case how, the informants relate identity
formation to discipleship vocabulary.
Several of the other low-frequency organizations criticize discipleship for either being
individualistic or leading to individualism. This way they support the assumption that
discipleship is connected to an education of the individual. Especially if we consider selfdevelopment as a process of becoming distinguished from other individuals, we can
understand this critique. Gran Martinsen (Norges unge katolikker) thinks discipleship
vocabulary is a concept of little help for her organization, since it describes a kind of
individual identity at the expense of others. For her it threatens the idea of unity and equality
of all Catholics. Nilsen Rotevatn (Changemaker) believes discipleship vocabulary is a kind of
exclusive concept: He remembers the discipleship environment in which he grew up as a
group of people with a need to distinguish themselves from “normal” Christians.
In the high-frequency organizations, there are positive examples of how discipleship
vocabulary and concepts of discipleship in fact is a properly human way of developing one’s
natural talents and capacities. In Korsvei “motion” and “road” are metaphors for an ongoing
change in individuals. In Ungdom i Oppdrag, “being in a process” and “building character”
are reappearing descriptions of what happens to students at a DTS. Laget talks about “going
290
291
Biesta, Læring retur, 22.
Intervju på kirken.no
184
deeper” and “being rooted”, and in Misjonsforbundet Ung “growing” and “developing” are
frequent metaphors.
At the same time, I do not think we quite yet have said all that needs to be said. From
what I see in the material, there is a specialized kind of identity formation that is more
attributed to the use of discipleship vocabulary:
5.2.4 Intentionality: Giving purpose through discipleship
I was initially caught unawares by Firing Hvambsal (Norges KFUK-KFUM) with the idea
that the organizational purpose of discipleship could be expressed in terms of intentionality.
She was the one who brought this perspective into the conversation. Her description is to the
point, I think, and remarkable, considering her coming from one of the very low-frequency
organizations. It should be added that Firing Hvambsal never made use of the actual word
intentionality. She did however include related terms like “taking part in an assignment”,
“mission exceeding oneself”, “expanding the goals”, “wider context”, “personal agenda”, and
“give a wider reach”. Her reflection came when she was asked to ponder on why (in the
world) some organizations still talk about discipleship today. Despite her unfamiliarity,
hostility even, towards discipleship, she gave this little piece of reflection:
I believe it [the use of discipleship vocabulary] could mark an expansion, a placing of a
person’s life into a wider context. By having the identity of a disciple one has part in an
assignment and a mission exceeding oneself. I guess “disciple” as a headline over a person’s
life represents a considerable counterweight to individualization and only being responsible
for your own fortune. That is one of my first associations. It’s about wanting to give young
people a personal agenda and expanding the goals for their lives, it’s about expanding their
life-assignment, but perhaps also to give them a wider reach for how to steward the resources
they possess themselves and have in their surroundings. So that is one thing. In that sense it is
a considerable and appropriate counterweight to (the message of) “love yourself”.
Having pondered on Firing Hvambsal’s statement for a year or so, I still find her
description of “wanting to give young people a personal agenda” to the point. It describes a
purpose embedded in the kind of discipleship found on a strategic level in many Norwegian
Christian youth organizations – at least in the high-frequency organizations in the material. To
invite someone into discipleship is to invite them into a life-assignment exceeding oneself. It
could be thought of as taking part or entering a way of life. This way of life is not primarily
recognizable from external marks, but by the passion – the intentions – of those living it.
Discipleship is thus released from being attached to specific contexts, norms, and practices. It
could be found in any circumstance. It has more to do with attitudes, willingness,
commitment, desire, purpose, etc. But more than that it presupposes that life is a possibility
185
for taking active part in God’s intervention with the world. This could be related to
citizenship; society is what God addresses. One might relate it to organizational enculturation;
this is something done in companionship with others. And one might even relate it to identity
formation; individuals becoming who they are. These are all present elements of intentional
discipleship. But this understanding and use of discipleship vocabulary has first and foremost
the characteristics of a purpose of a purpose: the will to help young people; to “take part” in
“an assignment”, in a “mission exceeding oneself”, to give the “personal agenda” a “wider
context”, and in “expanding the goals” to “give a wider reach”.
In order to support and expand on the statement of Firing Hvambsal I will in the
following describe the educational motifs I find in the four high-frequency organizations and
argue that “intentionality” in fact is a fitting description for the way they express the
educational aims of discipleship, despite the fact that none of the informants use the term. It
will also become clear that intentionality in itself is a wide and flexible concept – but with a
common denominator in the possibility for the individual to take part in God’s active work in
the world:
Ungdom i Oppdrag is an obvious place to start. Intentionality is present in the very
name of this organization: Youth with a Mission. Nordli describes disciple-making as a
process where cognitive knowledge and information are transformed, implemented and put
into life. He sometimes calls this spiritual formation – but it is more than that, he says:
“Discipleship is far from only being spiritual, it’s about everyday life”.
Nordli views discipleship as a life-long process, the preferred metaphor for this
process being growth. The starting point of this process is not that important – it starts long
before enrolling at DTS, he asserts. The main issue for Nordli is to underline that it never
finishes. And most importantly, “that you are aware of being right in the middle of this
process yourself” – hence intentionality. Ungdom i Oppdrag’s visions on formation are
probably most evident in their DTSs. Here the goal is to help young people enter into and
remain in this formative process. But more than that: to “give the principles to keep on
growing in life after the DTS is finished”. Nordli claims that when the DTS was introduced
some thirty years ago, it was a result of bold innovation. The concept of teaching, coaching,
and practice in a framework of close relationships was unheard of in Norway at the time.
“Today you will find many of the other Bible colleges in Norway inspired by this way of
doing things,” he claims. I would have to agree at this point, and even add: It is quite
186
remarkable that most Bible schools in fact have included “discipleship” in the names of their
programs.
Most interesting, considering that “intentionality” has often been a term to describe the
ethos of monastic movements, Nordli relates the formation found in Ungdom i Oppdrag to the
formation found in the monasteries. He quotes the Swedish mystic Peter Haldorf who once
said that it was the monastic movements that preserved genuine Christian faith in the church
during the dark Middle Ages. It is interesting from a phenomenological perspective that
Nordli understands his own charismatic movement in terms of a monastic narrative. The point
he makes is not primarily to take on the role of savior of true Christian faith, but rather the
affirmation of the importance of a commitment to a formative process of deepening
intentional ways of life.
Laget is also interesting in this respect. It has in the past been reputed for its solid
leadership training. Many in my parents’ generation would recall having received their first
leadership training in Laget that later made them prominent leaders in church and society.
When I was still a high school student in the 1990s, this leadership training of Laget took
place as organized courses in the school vacations. The curriculum then was primarily
connected to practical organizing skills, such as being a secretary, preacher, treasurer,
chairperson, etc. – a type of educational practice aiming at organizational building and later
for the good of society.
In the interview, Fagermoen emphasizes a very different purpose today. The emphasis
has shifted from defined roles and activities to becoming God’s agents of change. The
recurring metaphor Fagermoen uses to express his vision is “deep”: he wants his members to
“go deeper” and for a “deepening” of their faith. This shift from a training in practical skills to
a formation of character directed towards mission is connected to the same kind of intentional
discipleship.
Discipleship was never part of the church language in which Fagermoen was raised.
His first encounter with this was as a student at Mission – an evangelical mega-conference in
the Netherlands. What he encountered there was for him life-changing: It was “the first time”
he received “solid teaching about the Christian life. A teaching that was not only occupied
with salvation and commandments” but conceptualized “actual interest in living the (new)
life”.
The Christian life – that’s what its all about. It is not just an add-on towards the end. It is not
only rules and regulations and superficial borders for a Christian life – the extreme limits. It
187
was here I first realized it was core material for my life. I remember I was totally absorbed and
fascinated. There was something here.
Up to this point I felt as if much of the preaching was about becoming a Christian and the
objective basis for salvation, about Jesus as something important. This is of course not
insignificant, but this new thing resonated with something in me: there was more to say. I was
immediately fascinated. I believe it is there in the Bible, in the epistles, in Acts, and I am very
triggered by it – there is a world of relation and life here, which is very exciting.
Like Nordli, Fagermoen also underlines the life-long perspective of this process of
growth. The whole concept of becoming a Christian is a process, taking step by step towards
Christ. This introduction of an evangelical process has changed everything in Laget, he says.
Children at leadership training are not longer drilled in practical skills, but discipleship. The
training is no longer restricted to camps during school vacations, this is now a year-round
activity. The aim of the discipleship training in Laget is ultimately that students again start
taking initiatives in their schools and campuses – rooted in deep intentional discipleship: “If
youth once again gets hooked on Jesus, connected to Jesus, become living branches on the
wine, we will see fruit – and not just activities,” he says.
Some of the same patterns are also found in Misjonsforbundet Ung. Discipleship was
introduced on a strategic level somewhere around the year 2000. As we saw in chapter 3,
discipleship in Misjonsforbundet Ung could be interpreted as a reaction against a revival
culture that no longer felt helpful. This vocabulary was probably introduced to give voice to a
process of formation in contrast to the punctual nature of altar calls etc. Both
Misjonsforbundet Ung and Laget share a peculiar situation; negotiating a heavy evangelical
heritage with the emergence of a spirituality emphasizing formation and process in Christian
life. In Misjonsforbundet Ung, the ultimate sign of this is “Levende Tro”, the Christian
education program. For a revivalist organization to move from punctual repentance to a lifelong gradual acquiring of faith, marks a rather significant shift.
Ree Sunde underlines repeatedly that the discipleship of future generations
presupposes maturity in the discipleship of people living today. The end product, and the
starting point, of discipleship are adults with commitment. Her greatest concern is the
shortage of what she calls “discipleship culture” in her parents’ and her own generation. The
prime arena for Christian education in Misjonsforbundet Ung is not in church but mainly in
homes and in families. The fostering of disciples enables this, she says, in that it equips future
parents for intentional Christian parenting and leadership.
Intentionality is also present in the discipleship of Korsvei, the fourth high-frequency
organization in the sample, but once again it looks a bit different here. In the context of
188
Ungdom i Oppdrag, mission was the articulated purpose. In Laget it was student initiatives,
and in Misjonsforbundet Ung it was involvement in the spiritual upbringing of the next
generation. Intentionality in Korsvei is, contrary to this, not directly related to the
transmission of faith, but more bound to active engagement in the world: social activism etc.
– as indicated by the “road signs”. The first road sign, “seeking Jesus Christ”, is often
interpreted as the condition for the three others. This way, the road signs could be interpreted
as an expression of intentionality. As an answer to the discipleship question they all indicate a
purposeful motion in a certain direction:
Discipleship is to know that you are not there yet. This is what I think is important – to
continuously develop. This has to do with walking instead of sitting down. You might hear it
as a critique of that kind of Christian understanding predominantly marked by attention
towards outer borders. (…)
Instead we want to define the faith from a center. (…) We point at Jesus Christ as the center of
faith and at some consequences from that. If you approach this light, then there are some areas
of life that come into focus: the inner life and prayer in searching for Jesus Christ and greater
political and global questions. For us it has been important to try to define a center.
In all the high-frequency organizations there is the will to help young people to “take
part” in “an assignment”, in a “mission exceeding oneself”, to give a “personal agenda” and a
“wider context”, and in “expanding the goals” to “give a wider reach”. There is in these
organizations a purpose of giving purpose, with a message that there is more to faith than
salvation, and more to commitment than a one-time decision. God is still active in the world,
and any individual is invited to participate with him. Taking part in God’s active works is
conditioned by the willingness to take part in a formative process. The intentionality here
marks an expanding and explorative understanding of Christian life, not primarily a pruning
one.
5.3
Discipleship and mentoring relationships: the lean towards sectarianism
Several of the informants expressed a deep longing for mentoring relationships.292 One of
them, Kilde Aarebrot (Substans) put it this way:
292
With the term “mentoring relationships” I here understand any kind of relationship aimed at accommodating
learning. A relationship of this kind would under normal circumstances consist of a mentor and a mentee (person
mentored), bound together with the intention of learning. Mentoring relationships come in countless versions.
The role of mentor may take on many names (coach, trainer, teacher, guide, master etc.), and so can the role of
mentee (apprentice, pupil, disciple, seeker, etc.). The relationship could consist of just two people – or take place
in smaller groups. The relationship between mentor and mentee is usually, but does not have to be, asymmetrical.
The relationship could be more or less organized, and the frequency of mentoring could vary.
189
I have missed them [the mentors] all my years. I have been raised as a Christian, but almost
entirely without any role models. On many occasions I have been encouraged to reflect upon
and write down the names of my role models. My sheet has always been blank.
Lately I have managed to identify a few. In doing that I have realized how important it is for
me to have someone to stretch for, someone I can ask rather practically, “How do you pray? –
I think it is hard to find a rhythm, to pray every day”.
To be able to ask someone in person, and not only listen to a sermon, but to ask a person I
look up to about how they do it, has been incredibly important. Talking about it now makes
me almost bitter. Why haven’t I had such a person in my life earlier?
There are at least three reasons for examining the relation between the use of
discipleship vocabulary and mentoring relationships on a strategic level in Norwegian
Christian youth organizations. Firstly, from its very outset, being apprenticed as a master’s
disciple was the common way in which education was conceptualized and conducted. The
master could come in many shapes and sizes: as a philosopher in classical Antiquity, as
prophets in Old Testament times, or as rabbis in the time of Jesus. A disciple followed the
master for a period of time before, one day, eventually becoming a master himself. Education
in the apprenticeship tradition was conceived as the transfer of knowledge, ethos, habits, and
skills from the master to the disciple apprentice through participation and imitation.293
Secondly, as we also touched upon in 5.1.3 and 1.2.2, “relational ministry”, often
implying some kind of mentoring relationships, has become a widespread strategy in youth
ministry.294 This is most likely related to the phenomenon that many people, youths and adults
alike, apparently long for a mentor or coach in their lives.
Thirdly, some make this connection between discipleship and mentoring explicit. Such
a perspective is evident in for instance the writings of Stanley and Clinton:
293
Today we know that the educational task – and apprenticeship – involves far more than one-way transmission.
See for instance Vegard Holm, På sporet av noe ekte (Oslo: Luther, 2012). The hierarchical structures that once
made this learning tradition possible are highly and rightly problematized and revised. Despite this,
apprenticeship as educational theory has lately experienced an increase in popularity. See for instance Jean Lave
and Etienne Wenger, Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation (Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1991). Klaus Nielsen and Steinar Kvale, Mesterlære: Læring som sosial praksis, trans. Gunnar Bureid
(Oslo: Ad Notam Gyldendal, 1999). Kaare Skagen, I veiledningens landskap: Innføring i veiledning og
rådgivning (Kristiansand: Høyskoleforlaget, 2004). Jean Lipman-Blumen, Ronald E. Riggio, and Ira Chaleff,
The art of followership: How great followers create great leaders and organizations (San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass, 2008).
294
Søren Østergaard and Simon Hall, “Focusing youth ministry through innovation,” in Starting right: Thinking
theologically about youth ministry, ed. Kenda Creasy Dean, Chap Clark, and David Rahn (Grand Rapids, MI:
Youth Specialties/Zondervan Publishing House, 2001), 218. Paul Otto Brunstad, “Ungdomsarbeid blant
menneskeetere,” in Ungdom i rørsle 2. Faglege perspektiv og utfordringar, ed. Jan Ove Ulstein (Oslo: Tapir,
2004), 252. One additional example: In their book Passing on the faith, Merton P. Strommen and Richard A.
Hardel suggests four levels of cross-generational relationships in youth ministry: (1) Caring by adults, (2)
Mentoring by adults, (3) Counseling by youth staff, and (4) Counseling by trained counselors. Strommen and
Hardel, Passing on the faith, 214–20.
190
The discipler is the mentoring type with which the majority of us are probably most familiar.
(…) Discipling is a relational process in which a more experienced follower of Christ shares
with the newer believer the commitment, understanding, and basic skills necessary to know
and obey Jesus Christ as Lord (…) The mentor leads more in this relationship than any other
mentoring type, as so much is new for the mentoree. This bears a close similarity to
apprenticeship relations as found in the skilled labor fields.295
In this section I will revisit the material with the purpose of understanding the
relationship between mentoring and the use of discipleship vocabulary. How, and in what way
are mentoring relationships framed in this language, and in this case, do the informants have
experiences to share in doing so?
5.3.1 Case: Mentoring as Discipleship
Ungdom i Oppdrag is probably the one organization in the sample with the most outspoken
strategy of active mentoring. According to Nordli, it is a recognizable mark of the DTS and
regarded as a prime success criterion. Every student at a DTS has a personal mentor to meet
once a week, but who is also available around the clock.296 Nordli demonstrates a firm
conviction that everything important in education happens in and through mentoring
relationships. For him, these relationships nurture dialogue and dialogue is a prerequisite for
discipleship. For Nordli, mentoring is a fundamental part of discipleship:
[Discipleship] is primary relational, and does not happen from a platform. When I speak at for
instance our convention I try to give a big picture, but that has nothing to do with disciplemaking. Even teaching at a DTS is not disciple-making. But disciple-making can happen
during lunch-break with students or while eating dinner at a DTS, where I can ask the
questions, where I can get feedback, where we achieve dialogue. Dialogue is a prerequisite for
disciple-making. Disciple-making can never be a monologue.
In Laget mentoring relationships were fairly recently introduced – at least to the extent
we see today. In the future Fagermoen envisions that every employee will be less
administrative and event oriented, and use considerably larger portion of his working hours on
walking closely with a few students.
While the mentoring relationships in Ungdom i Oppdrag seem to be one-on-one, Laget
favors a small-group set-up of three people. Fagermoen suggests this is done to prevent a oneway communication from the older to the younger. A sense of equality and mutual interaction
295
Paul D. Stanley and J. Robert Clinton, Connecting: The mentoring relationships you need to succeed in life.
(Colorado Springs, CO: Navpress, 1992), 47ff. Similar connections are also made in other religions, see for
instance: Whalen Lai, “Master and pupil: Buddhist perspectives,” in Encyclopedia of monasticism, ed. William
M. Johnston (Chicago: Fitzroy Dearborn, 2000).
296
The level of intimacy and frequency in the mentor relationships in Ungdom i Oppdrag is astonishing. In their
defense it should be noted that the mentoring relationships here are preliminary, and only last for the few months
of the DTS program.
191
is easier to maintain in a small groups, he argues. At the same time, keeping the group this
small preserves the potential that lies in differences and levels of experience. Fagermoen, like
Nordli, connects this version of mentoring relationships to discipleship:
The entire idea is that this is not one-on-one – because then the mature [person] becomes the
one discipling the less mature one. In groups of three everyone will be able to disciple each
other, and all three are disciples of Jesus. One can bring to the table maturity in some areas, in
other areas probably the younger one has maturity to offer.
I try not to be the general secretary. In one way I have already done that in such a setting. But
I also put aside being the oldest, most professional, and the one that has most knowledge. We
are consciously making the group flat in structure. But having done so, the asymmetry
between us is very useful.
Asymmetries stimulate our conversation in searching for practices of faith together. It would
be much more boring, if everyone was like me.
For Fagermoen as for Nordli mentoring is part of discipleship. There are obvious
differences between the two, but they share the basic assumption that discipleship is learnt in
relation to others more mature than oneself. In the words of Ree Sunde (Misjonsforbundet
Ung) we will now meet a third variant of this same basic assumption; for her mentoring takes
place in the congregational and family setting.
When Misjonsforbundet Ung uses the term “Christian education” it is with one great
distinction from “Christian education” in Trosopplæringen. At the core of its understanding,
Ree Sunde explains, children are educated through adults. In Misjonsforbundet Ung Christian
education therefore addresses the potential mentors: the adults, and not children and youth
directly.
Her great concern is the lack of discipleship culture among adults in her denomination.
With such a culture present, mentoring – and thereby Christian education would have been
redundant.
One of the problems we come across in the congregations – and this is my critique – I wonder
if Misjonsforbundet has a disciple culture we can build on. Our first experience with Levende
Tro is that it takes quite a while for adults to understand what we mean by discipleship. It
seems as if they don’t put the same definitions in the same words. […] The congregations vary
a lot, but our experience is that it is hard to understand that disciple-making is not built on
activities but on relations. We imply that in order to be a disciple, you need someone to learn
from. There is a real shortage of those people in the congregations.
That is why [the concept of] “disciple pulse” is so important to teach adults, so that they
always find sources, and find their own pulse, and how they meet Jesus and learn something
new.
I am not only worried for those in their twenties and older. I believe the answer to much of the
absence we see in church could be solved through disciple-making.
192
Ree Sunde’s aspiration is to produce what she calls a disciple culture, and she believes
mentoring relationships, in a wide sense, would flow naturally from that.
5.3.2 Case: Mentoring and discipleship somewhat related
In KRIK there is a strong situational element when it comes to mentoring.297 On the ground,
among members, in local groups, and at festivals, mentoring relationships are rather rare,
according to Holm. He does however insist that mentoring relationships are increasingly
important, not only to him personally but also to the organization as such. The theme of
mentoring relationships emerged on two occasions in the interview: first, when we talked
about leadership training in the movement, either connected to festivals or as programs of
study; second, when we talked about his (then) forthcoming book. Holm described his book
as an attempt to develop a theoretical framework and practical tools for mentoring
relationships in KRIK – and possibly in the wider church. In both cases mentoring
relationships played a vital part, and in both cases, the Navigators (and Ole-Magnus Olafsrud)
were named as important sources of inspiration.
KRIK being a low-frequency organization, one might to easily draw the conclusion
that any practice of mentoring is without relation to discipleship. This assumption is in my
mind misleading. Taking into account what Holm earlier said about discipleship vocabulary,
we now realize that the arenas of mentoring are exactly same: in leadership training and in his
book. This should awaken our interest. Where there is discipleship, there seems to be
mentoring, and vice versa. I have no evidence in the material indicating that discipleship
vocabulary is used to frame mentoring in KRIK – just that the two occur in the same places.
Korsvei, like KRIK, has no program for mentoring running through the organization
as a whole. In its booklet on the road signs, which for most people is what Korsvei really is
and does, there are few, if any, traces of either mentoring relationships or discipleship
vocabulary. In its booklet on the road-grip monastic fellowship, however, discipleship
vocabulary and mentoring relationships are at the very core of the program – both highly
talked about and frequently mentioned. Once again, this resembles the situation in KRIK:
mentoring and discipleship do not permeate the entire organization, but both appear in their
programs for the extraordinarily interested.
297
It should be noted that mentoring in both KRIK and Korsvei is the informal symmetrical kind of mentoring;
in Norwegian medvandring, which directly translates as together-wanderers. It somewhat parallels the English
soul friend.
193
During the interview, Grønvik brought up the topic of discipleship, understood as
mentoring relationships, on several occasions. “It is of importance,” he claims, “that we live
our lives in a way that endures the imitation of others”. To be a role model is, in the words of
Grønvik, both important and difficult:
I believe it is decisive that there are role models. It should be a goal for all of us to say with
Paul, “Follow my example”. Or to express it inversely: If we live in a way that we cannot say:
“Imitate this”, then we don’t live the way we should. This is difficult for most of us as we are
very well aware our own imperfection.
This quote from the apostle Paul, where he urges the Corinthian church to follow his
example through imitation and also claims to be their “Father in Christ”, has been important
to Grønvik since he was a student.298 The verses arouse a longing he has carried all his life, a
longing for spiritual role models. The rebellion in his own generation towards authority
figures he thinks was healthy. At the same time, he believes this generation also carries a
strong longing for trustworthy role models. The shortage of “spiritual fatherhood” is
precarious, he claims. He mentions Edin Løvås as an important mentor for him personally.
The reluctance towards authorities on one side and the longing for spiritual fatherhood on the
other represents for him a real dilemma. The closest Grønvik comes to a solution is by
suggesting a “mutual fatherhood”: a mutual relationship between two people equally
responsible for the other’s development and wellbeing – soul friends, if you will. This
mutuality should not, however, prevent adults from being available to younger people.
In establishing the road-grip fellowship, the same tension came to the surface in the
organization, Grønvik says. One part of their suggested monastic rule was to have a soul mate,
a fellow wanderer, and a mentor. Grønvik says that this was the single most difficult point in
the starting phase of the fellowship, the point that stirred up most debate and anxiety.
In the group that set up the road-grip fellowships, the one point we discussed the most, was the
point about having a fellow wanderer. And the discussion was partly governed by anxiety.
“Should this person be an auditor controlling my life? Is this someone I should account to?”
We discussed this repeatedly in order to forcefully put in print that it is you that invite
someone to do a favor. You are the one governing your relationship to your fellow wanderer.
A connected problem, he said, was that finding good mentors actually proved to be
quite a challenge. Korsvei had to work on its thinking at this point, that a mentor did not have
to be an expert, or a person with inexhaustible amounts of wisdom. Its experience is that some
of the best mentoring relationships are the ones where the two are fairly similar. Fumbling,
weakness and similarity are no longer considered to be drawbacks in a mentor relationship.
298
1 Corinthians 4:15.
194
The essential skill for a mentor is the ability and determination to remain alongside another
human being in the search for direction together.
Grønvik also made it clear that this is an area he has struggled with personally for
decades and tried to reflect upon. As a theologian he links much of his ambivalence to what
he sees as a deficiency in Protestant theology – a misinterpretation of Luther’s discovery of
Jesus Christ as the only intermediary between God and man.
I believe this is the greatest deficiency disease in Protestant theology. (…) I think it has grown
out of Luther’s courageous words: “Here I stand, I can nothing else!” It occurs to me that he
says “I” twice. We often say, “Here I stand and can nothing else”, but he actually said “Hier
stehe ich. Ich kann nicht anderes”.
His finding in his reformation was that I do not need anyone between God and me. There is
only one intermediary between God and people: the person of Jesus Christ.
This has given us a form of Christianity were we don’t need each other. There are plenty of
nice things to say about this (…) but I believe we have lost something as well, concerning how
people lead people into a life of discipleship.
We have seen how some perceive mentoring as discipleship, while others see that the
two are interrelated but without an obvious connection. This next case describes how
mentoring for others again exceeds any concept of discipleship, and thrives without it.
5.3.3 Case: Mentoring without discipleship
In the previous it became clear that some relate discipleship to mentoring directly, while for
others the relation is somewhat more diffuse. In this next case we have organizations that on
one side are reluctant to use discipleship vocabulary, while on the other; they find mentoring
relationships of great value.
Although Norges unge katolikker has no official program for mentoring, Gran
Martinsen reveals quite a considerable interest in and practice of mentoring on camps and
meetings. The most common mentoring group set-up in Norges unge katolikker is where
small groups gather to talk and reflect about faith, under the guidance of a person somewhat
older than the rest. Another variant of informal mentoring takes place when monks and nuns
attend the events and trips. Their role is amongst other things to act as spiritual guides. Gran
Martinsen admits not having a personal spiritual guide, but claims it was very normal for the
leaders in Norges unge katolikker to have one. Instead she had a regular routine in going to
confession. In Norges unge katolikker we have our first example of an organization clearly
promoting one but not the other – mentoring, but not discipleship. The same is the case in the
next organization.
195
Kilde Aarebrot (Substans) is in my view the most eager advocate of mentoring in the
sample. His enthusiasm at this point is comparable to the enthusiasm of Nordli (Ungdom i
Oppdrag) and Fagermoen (Laget). His concept of it is however somewhat different. Kilde
Aarebrot not only talked about the personal benefit of having a mentor. He also shared that
parts of their program thematize the importance of having a mentor, and the actual task of
finding one is part of the program. Although having proven his capacity for both critical
reflection and skeptical attitude earlier on in the interview, little of this was present when
Kilde Aarebrot talked about mentoring relationships – even when being confronted with
possible disadvantages etc.
There is nothing in me that thinks this is unhealthy. Rather the opposite. In any kind of
relationship there could be a potential abuse of power. But if you want to avoid this, you
would have to avoid people.
We talked for a while about his and others’ leader roles when leading Jesus-dojo. A
leader of a Jesus-dojo needs a number of leadership skills, he said. Being a coach or a mentor
is most definitely one of them. He admitted he pictured his own leadership style in terms of a
mentor and coach. What we find in Substans is a strong emphasis on mentoring and a
simultaneous low use of discipleship vocabulary. Despite the fact that contenders of the Jesusdojos are thought of as apprentices in an Asian/martial arts way, and despite the fact that the
relationship Jesus had to his historical disciples is a model for the relationships in the Jesusdojo, he will not adapt and take use of the Christian language of discipleship.
5.3.4 Case: Neither mentoring nor discipleship
The three remaining organizations are not only low and moderate in their use of discipleship
vocabulary; they do not put much emphasis on mentoring relationships either.
The fact that Firing Hvambsal of Norges KFUK-KFUM shows little interest in
mentoring relationships should be understood as a rejection of any youth-adult relationship.
“Adult presence” is a term coined by Norges KFUK-KFUM and a basic value in the
organization. This is a kind of presence that in several ways is conceptualized otherwise than
what normally is associated with mentoring relationships. First of all, all decision-making
authority is organized in a well-developed democratic system and regulated by laws. Firing
Hvambsal says that the organization recently adopted new laws that stated “any unit with
three or more youth members should have an independently elected board where adults
refrain from any formal democratic position”. Secondly, she wants to avoid adults that
operate on their own and adults that end up being indispensible. Arguing from a feminist
196
perspective but also from strategic consideration, she finds adults in long and prominent
positions troublesome. A major concern is to secure that any adult relationship is a healthy
relationship. Mentoring is not her way to proceed:
I want to say that the voluntariness, the adult relation, the presence, and the safety net – when
it becomes unhealthy: No one should be alone in the adult position. I have always reacted – I
don’t like one adult, on his own, without a team of adults, and who becomes indispensible in
local work. Not because I don’t appreciate their efforts, but it’s simply not good. There are
already too many boys and men loved as heroes and rooted for, and I think: no!
And thirdly, and this is my interpretation, Norges KFUK-KFUM is not first of all an
organization for individuals; their overall perspective is the organizing of local units. Adult
presence is directed towards these local units, as an overseer of group-processes, not of
individual as mentor. Firing Hvambsal emphasizes the importance of adults in these local
units. Repeatedly she uses the word “safety net” to elaborate the role of the adult; to observe
social interaction and intervene when necessary, to affirm and empower, to ensure that
everyone gets a chance at equal opportunities, and to facilitate and support in administration.
A similar emphasis may be even more evident in Changemaker, where local units are
the entities that receive primary attention, not individual members. Nilsen Rotevatn makes
clear that very little of what Changemaker does is done individually.
I believe our typical method is to work in groups and work in collaboration. We have put
down considerable effort in developing an encouraging culture. We try to create the
atmosphere and environment that creates the energy needed for voluntary work. We have an
office for volunteers, but actually it is as much a pleasant place to hang out.
All local groups have a sponsor (Norw.: fadder) – one of the members of the central
committee. “It is easy to get in touch with the local leaders, but it has proven more
challenging to meet the rest of the group,” Nilsen Rotevatn said, leaving the impression that
meeting individuals, even the local leaders, is not a proper meeting. “As a sponsor, you are
not a personal mentor for one or two local representatives, but your responsibility is to follow
up the whole group”, he says. As in Norges KFUK-KFUM, Changemaker is not only
reluctant towards discipleship – personal mentoring is also ruled out.
One organization remains, Trosopplæringen. All participant congregations in
Trosopplæringen are offered mentors.299 This service has similarities with what we found in
Norges KFUK-KFUM and Changemaker earlier: supervision and support of the mentor is
directed towards local entities and specific projects – and not towards individuals and their
lives. This is of course a fully justifiable way of organizing a mentor relationship, but it is
299
http://iko.no/sider/tekst.asp?side=80&submeny=Mentortjenesten
197
fundamentally different from what I understand by the term mentor relationship. Individual
mentorships would somewhat collide against the communal understanding of learning and
church in Trosopplæringen. Their position on this is extensively described above (See 2.2.2,
3.5, and 4.3.2).
To summarize before moving on:
•
•
•
•
•
Organizations that focus on groups seem to avoid personal mentoring
relationships but also discipleship as a theological framework.
It seems as if both discipleship and (personal) mentoring relationships have a
common denominator in addressing the individual.
Organizations that emphasize individual initiative seem to be drawn towards a
working methodology of mentoring relationships and discipleship. This goes
together with the lean towards sodality and intentionality.
In Korsvei and KRIK there seems to be concurrence of when mentoring is
talked about and when discipleship vocabulary is promoted – but not without a
direct relation between the two.
In several high-frequency organizations mentoring is understood as a
prerequisite for discipleship.
5.3.5 The shepherding/discipleship movement (an excursus)
As the informants commented on the mentoring relationship and its relation to discipleship,
several of them expressed concern about such a connection. Particularly two informants, to
whom I will return below, shared their experiences of something they called “the shepherding
movement”. They both commented how, for a little while, impulses from this movement even
made an impact on Norwegian church life, especially in the beginning of the Jesus movement
in the 1970s. They described this movement as a worst-case scenario of what could happen if
discipleship was conceptualized as mentoring. I became of course very interested, and went
on a search for literature. In addition to quite a few mentions on the Internet, I got hold of
three books describing the phenomenon.300
These books tell three versions of the same story, the story of “the discipling
movement”. They claim that the same phenomenon has appeared in several religious groups
under various labels such as the “shepherding movement”, “discipleship movement”, and
even just “discipleship”. The books also discuss critically what they see as unfortunate and
300
S. David Moore, The shepherding movement: Controversy and charismatic ecclesiology (London: T&T Clark
Int., 2003); Ron Burks and Vicki Burks, Damaged disciples: Casualties of authoritarian churches and the
shepherding movement (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Pub. House, 1992); Flavil R. Yeakley jr. et al., The
discipling dilemma (Nashville, TN: Gospel Advocate Co., 1988).
198
unhealthy elements reoccurring in connection to the use of discipleship. Yeakley jr. et al.
describes the heart of the matter, the dilemma, as follows:
Several denominations have experienced growth as a result of the discipling movement in
various places throughout the world. Those same denominations, however, have been troubled
by the doctrines and practices associated with this movement.
The word ”discipling” is used in this movement to mean much more than making converts. It
is used primarily to describe a system of intense training and close personal supervision of the
Christians being discipled. Disciples are regarded as being superior to mere Christians.
Disciples are said to be Christians who have received special training. This training includes
much more than mere teaching. There is an intense one-on-one relationship between the
discipler and the Christian being discipled. The discipler gives detailed personal guidance to
the Christian being discipled. This guidance may include instructions concerning many
personal matters of a totally secular nature. The person being discipled is taught to submit to
the discipler. Furthermore, the person being discipled is taught to imitate the discipler.
Christians being discipled are required to confess their sins to their discipler. Such confession
is followed by rebuke, correction, admonition, and prayer. If the person being discipled seems
reluctant to confess sins, the discipler asks probing personal questions to elicit the confession.
Discipling is hierarchical. There is a clear distinction between the discipler and the person
being discipled. A Christian might have many peer relationships, but only one person is that
Christian’s discipler. That discipler is the person who must be imitated and obeyed.
After a Christian has been discipled for a while, that Christian is expected to start discipling
others. The result is a pyramid of relationships that resembles a multi-level marketing system.
That hierarchical system continues through as many steps as may be needed as the discipling
movement spreads. The growth of the discipling network typically disciples a small group of
lay leaders. The lay leaders then disciple members one step lower in the pyramid. That
hierarchical system continues through as many steps as may be needed as the discipling
movement spreads. The growth of the discipling network typically goes beyond one local
congregation to include many other congregations established by the parent group.301
According to Yeakley jr. et al., much is at stake with the mentoring relationship. Any
mentoring relationship can of course develop into an unhealthy relationship, but the way I
read Yeakley et al., a series of troubling factors are added when these relationships are framed
in discipleship vocabulary. According to him we should in particular be on the watch for
discipleship becoming instrumental, when mentors become disciplers, when those they
mentor become disciples, when the relationship is marked by loyalty and submission, and
when the structure of it all looks like a pyramid. What often starts out as ideas of flat
ecclesiology, he argues, in fact ends up as a steep hierarchy without formal structure of
authority. Power relies on personal charisma. The dilemma is that “several denominations
have experienced growth as a result of the discipling movement in various places throughout
301
Yeakley jr. et al., The discipling dilemma, 1.
199
the world,” he writes, but this is a growth at a great expense. Individuals have lost their
integrity and churches and organizations have eventually gone under, he warns.
One of the clearest expressions of a discipling movement in modern times emerged in
the early 1970s in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. A group of pastors referred to as “the fabulous
five” set up what later would become “the shepherding movement”.302 The ideas and practices
of the movement soon became increasingly popular, infiltrating not only charismatic circles,
but even mainstream and traditional denominations too. According to one book, this
movement had all the marks of a discipling movement:
Drawing from the relationship of Jesus to the Twelve as a pattern for the discipling
relationship, a shepherd/leader was to disciple a small group of men, spending time not only
teaching them, but also training them by example and assignment. They believed it had been
Jesus’ method, and it was to be theirs as well.303
It is outside the scope of this thesis to go into details about the shepherding movement.
But let me extract what I find most interesting in their story, namely the start and the end of it.
The beginning: The movement did not start out with people who seemed to be in need
of controlling others. It started with a frustration over traditional churches, and their lack of
ability to reflect the kingdom of God here on earth. “The fabulous five” saw the need for new
kinds of churches with new kinds of Christians that better mirrored the promises to the
Church in The New Testament. Clusters of cell- and house-churches were formed. They soon
realized that the need for leaders was overwhelming, and that a new kind of dynamic and
relational leadership was required. The discipling system was set up to as a response to this
need.
The end: Already in its heyday, in the mid 1970s, other pastors warned the fabulous
five. The side effects had started to show, and casualties begun talking. Churches and even
denominations, mostly in America, split over controversies following the shepherding
movement. A definite preliminary climax in the story is an episode referred to as “The shootout at Curtis Hotel”. A denoted group of thirty-five senior pastors, led by Pat Robertson,
confronted the fabulous five in a Cincinnati hotel. By the mid 1980s one by one of the
initiators realized the devastation the shepherding movement created. Bob Mumford, the
charismatic spokesperson and the most widely known in the group, resigned publicly in 1990.
The largest charismatic Christian magazine at the time cleared its cover for his short but
302
303
Moore, The shepherding movement: Controversy and charismatic ecclesiology, 33.
Ibid., 73.
200
powerful statement. Against a black background it read: “Discipleship was wrong. I repent. I
ask forgiveness. – Bob Mumford.” (See facsimile below)
F IG U R E 8: F R O N T P A G E O F M IN IS T R IE S T O D A Y
W IT H A P O L O G Y O F
MUMFORD.
Towards the end of the book Yeakley jr. et al. draws their conclusions about
discipleship:
Disciples need to be called Christians again. It happened first in Antioch (Acts 11:26) and it
needs to happen today. The words “disciple,” “discipling,” and “discipleship” have been so
abused that they no longer communicate what they used to. The terms may some day be
rescued and used again in the biblical sense. For now, however, other terms used in the New
Testament for Christian growth will serve much better.304
A lot more could be said about this literature and the phenomenon it describes. For
now I will leave it at this and return to the main object of study, the use of discipleship
vocabulary on a strategic level in Norwegian Christian youth organizations. Also in the
answers of the informants there remains the legacy of the discipleship movement.
5.3.6 Experiences on the discipling dilemma
No presentation is objective. This also goes for the ones describing the discipling movement. I
do however think it is wise to take their warning seriously, especially since both mentoring
304
Yeakley jr. et al., The discipling dilemma, 123.
201
and discipleship is on a wave of popularity in some youth ministry circles nowadays.
Unwanted elements of discipling have been present, and probably will be, throughout
Christianity, the authors say.
I could probably name one or two examples in Norwegian at the outskirts of the
church that possibly could fit the description of a discipling system as rigid as the one
described above; but none are in my sample. From what I see in the material, none of the
organizations in the sample are directly influenced by the destructive elements of discipling
movements: not in the high-frequency organizations, nor in the organizations emphasizing the
importance of having a personal mentor.
It is not difficult, however, to trace elements within the sample that potentially, if
handled without caution, could develop into something associated with the dark side of
discipling movements, for instance:
•
•
•
Small discipleship groups with an intentional relational asymmetry, and with the
explicit purpose of later multiplication, resemble a kind of instrumentality you
would expect to find in discipling movements.
Intense mentoring programs with high commitment in combined with low
emphasis of formalized structures, roles and budgets resemble the kind of low
transparency you would expect to find in discipling movements.
Discipleship defined by a double mentor relationship – to Jesus Christ, but also to
a human disciple-maker, resembles the kind of blurry theology you would expect
to find in discipling movements.
In the past I have advocated all of the above. These are not unfamiliar ideas to any
person, church or organization involved in discipleship. None of the examples above are
dangerous in themselves – but such examples could, according to the authors of the books on
the discipling movement, potentially develop into unhealthy forms of church fellowship. The
skill and willingness to identify the difficult points should be much appreciated by anyone
inspired by discipleship.
The discovery of “the discipling movement” was to me personally the single biggest
surprise in working on this thesis. I was not aware of it – which is quite amazing considering
the amounts of books I have read about discipleship over the last twenty years. Consequently,
this was not included as a theme in the interview guide. Nordli (Ungdom i Oppdrag) and
Grønvik (Korsvei) were the ones who brought it up, for which I am grateful. Most youth
workers, I would guess, are not acquainted with this story either – or if they are, they are
remarkably quiet. This is a tremendously important piece of information, especially since
discipleship is once again picking up speed and framing quite a lot of Christian youth ministry.
202
Here is the transcript from the interview with Nordli of Ungdom i Oppdrag:
Q:
When I tell people I write on discipleship, several people warn me, and tell me to be
careful because discipleship could destroy people. Why do you think that is?
AN:
I think a lot about it… There was this movement in the 70s coming from the USA, all
movements come from the USA. It was called the shepherding movement. Have you
heard about it?
Q:
Slightly.
AN:
In one variant it was talked about as “heavy shepherding”. This was very unhealthy.
Q:
Heavy shepherding?
AN:
Heavy shepherding. That is what destroyed people. What in English is called
codependency happened there.
Q:
Code…?
AN:
Codependency, that you become co-dependent. That is when in a relationship you
make someone addicted to you to the point that the other is in a process of annihilation
of self. I have heard about this and I know examples of this in the discipleship
tradition. I believe the goal of discipleship should not be codependency but interdependency. Where all parties in the relationship are dependent on each other in a
positive way. And where the result, and this is important, the core of it all, is to be
made free to make independent choices. That is the goal. Not a kind of dependency
where one needs to ask for approval on what to do, for instance.
Q:
OK…
AN:
One extreme situation I know the mentor had to approve whom [the mentored person]
should marry. In that case you move beyond sectarian – then you belong to a
sect/cult.305
Q:
So where to draw the borders? Do you have a code of conduct on this?
AN:
We should probably have had a code of conduct, but we don’t. We try to be very
aware not to cross into the private sphere, we can cross into personal sphere, that you
have to, but never into the private sphere where you have not been welcomed. There is
not one place where this border goes. It is individual. The moment you move into the
private domain without having been invited in, then you commit spiritual and
emotional abuse.
305
I use the terms “sect”, “sectarian”, and “sectarism” with some ambivalence, predominantly because
informants do so. The English “sect” describes a characteristic or a property of a group. In Norwegian “sect”
overlaps “cult” and carries more negative connotations. The etymology of “sect” is somewhat unclear. The most
common understanding is to trace its roots back to the Latin “secare” which means to “cut”. In this perspective a
sect is understood as a religious group that withdraws from religion or society. See for instance Ernst Troeltsch,
The social teaching of the Christian churches (Louisville, Ky.: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1931). Others
point to the Latin “sequi” as the etymological root, which means “to follow” (!). In this perspective a sect is a
“voluntary form of organization which demands strict loyalty” of its members. See: Paul Heelas and Linda
Woodhead, Religion in modern times: An interpretive anthology (Oxford: Blackwell, 2000), 40.
203
Grønvik is the only informant in the sample having personal experiences with the
discipling movement – dating back to the beginnings of the Jesus awakening in the early
1970s.
In the Jesus awakening we were fortunate to have some mature adults who acted as mentors
among us. Edin Løvås was one of them, with the profile he had. Another was Hans Christian
Lier. Then there were some grown-up lay-people that were always present as spiritual advisors,
counselors, and conversation partners at the Gospel nights. We thought that everyone should
have a spiritual advisor. But in order to solve this in practice, some of the oldest youths would
have to step up to the challenge. We were not able to find enough people in the generation
before us.
One day, this group called “The Children of God” comes and becomes very involved in our
work. They get to stay in the old prayer house in Nordbygata. Hundreds of youth start to hang
out there. They had a whole package of music and lifestyle – you changed your name if you
became part of that group.
Some of our mentors were in the USA at the time. Traveling around they were warned about
Children of God in more and more Jesus-houses. After a while they became convinced that
Children of God was off track – that they left a lot of bad traces and that it was a sectarian
thing. The mentors in the USA called the mentors here. Some of them engaged in the problem
– and intervened.
In the spring of 1972 the Children of God was confronted. They were given the ultimatum to
let Norwegians be leaders, for instance. The same night, they packed their stuff and left.
Disappeared. Since then, no Children of God group has been established in Norway. Quite
quickly they were revealed as heretics. But their songs were incredibly beautiful.
I find it really interesting, and quite relieving, that the informants from the two very
high-frequency organizations are the ones aware of the discipling dilemma. It has not scared
them away from using discipleship vocabulary, but they know about the impending tendency
towards sectarianism within it. They have both taken their precautions, they say. Grønvik and
Korsvei have drawn a line: they talk about discipleship and being a disciple – but never about
discipling or disciple-making. It is when I asked him to explain this linguistic distinction that
the story from the Jesus movement was brought up in the interview.
We should not pass silently by the point Grønvik makes about mentoring. In his story
it was both the problem and the solution. It was an unhealthy kind of mentoring relationships
represented by the Children of God that caused the problems in the first place – according to
Grønvik it could have ended in disaster. But fortunately the movement was in the hands of
many sound mentors as well. It was their active intervention that saved the movement,
Grønvik tells.
204
5.4
Preliminary summary: Implications for youth ministry
In this chapter I have identified some implications of discipleship vocabulary for youth
ministry. By focusing on ecclesiology, organizational contribution and purpose, and
mentoring I have discovered what I would call a series of tendencies: A lean towards sodality,
a lean toward intentionality, and a lean towards sectarianism. Ontologically speaking I do not
see these three as properties of discipleship, but they are qualities attributed to the use of
discipleship vocabulary by association through experience etc. – at least on a strategic level in
the context of Norwegian Christian youth organizations.
The counterpart of the sodal intentional sect could be viewed as the modal institutional
church. There is in much of youth ministry, as in the use of discipleship vocabulary, a
tendency towards the former over the latter. To stop using discipleship vocabulary does not
necessarily remove the downside of the sodal intentional sect. Both youth ministry and the
use of discipleship vocabulary do however call upon tough and constant critical reflection.
While the downside of a modal and institutionalized fellowship might be boredom and the
like, the downside of a sodal and intentional fellowship might be something quite dangerous.
Many kinds of skills and insights are needed in order to engage in this in a healthy
way. One of them is theology, which is what the next chapter focuses on.
205
206
6
THEOLOGICAL IMPLICATIONS
As this chapter unfolds, it will become increasingly clear that the theological assumptions
associated with discipleship are not self-evident. The different informants ascribe different
theological content and significance to discipleship – and in doing so they open for different
kinds of understanding and use. While some of the theological assumptions that the
informants bring to the table should be seen as intuitive, unreflected even, other assumptions
are the products of a deeper engagement in theological reflection over time. For these reasons
it would be both irrelevant and tedious to read a report of every theological statement of every
informant. What you do find is an attempt at a faithful answer to a question from the available
material: What kind of theological ideas are implied in different uses of discipleship
vocabulary?
For this reason, although I will keep a sidelong view of all the organizations in the
sample, I limit the following investigation primarily to the organizations that actually use
discipleship vocabulary in their official documents. I start off by presenting a statistical
overview of different theological assumptions found in the material. The larger portion of this
chapter will circle around what I find to be the two major theological themes connected to
understanding and discerning the discipleship phenomenon: soteriology (6.2) and Christology
(6.3).
This is not the lengthiest of chapters in this thesis. I would however argue its
significance for the overall argument. The analysis will help identify theological difficulties
and deficiencies, and untapped theological potential in the use and understanding of
discipleship on a strategic level in Norwegian Christian youth organizations. The aim here,
then, is to single out and clarify these points empirically, and to some extent discuss them,
before bringing them along to Chapter 7 where they will receive a more constructive
expansion.
6.1
Theological assumptions in the material: an overview
Before even considering the content of the informants’ theological assumptions and their
relations to discipleship, it may be beneficial to grasp the overall picture. I have chosen to
start presenting the coding of theological assumptions in the material in a statistical manner.
The risk is, of course, a superficial, even false, understanding of the data. On the other hand,
207
this kind of quantification could contribute to an overview, which is what I am aiming at here.
If nothing else, this modest quantitative study has for me identified some basic theological
tendencies in the material related to discipleship, and paved the way for the more qualitative
analysis and interpretation, which is the main focus.
Several revisions of the codes and the entire code-hierarchy resulted in 522 excerpts
subordinate to the parent code-tag “Theological assumptions”. Every organization and
informant in the sample was well represented. In fact, if we look at the distribution of the
code “Theological assumptions” by the descriptor “Frequency of discipleship vocabulary in
official documents”, we get the sense of a fairly even normalized distribution306 of theological
assumptions throughout the material:
•
•
•
Low-frequency organizations represent 33.7% of the excerpts
Moderate-frequency organizations represent 37.9% of the excerpts
High-frequency organizations stand behind 28.4% of the excerpts
The “Theological assumptions” code-tag covers five child-codes. Several revisions
resulted in the following codes: Dogmatics (183), Spirituality (131), Ministry (76), Biblical
theology (29), and Ethics (103).307 These were distributed as follows:
90
80
70
60
50
Low-frequency
organizations
40
Moderate frequency
organizations*
30
High-ferquency
organizations
20
10
0
Dogmatics Spirituality Ministry
Biblical
theology
Ethics
F IG U R E 9: O V E R V IE W E X C E R P T S C O D E D A S “ T H E O L O G IC A L A S S U M P T IO N S ” IN IN T E R V IE W .
306
Normalized distribution = when uneven categories are presented by percentage, the numbers are always
normalized – i.e. adjusted as if the categories were the same size. (There are two moderate-frequency
organizations in the sample, and four of the other two categories.)
307
The numbers of codes are given in parentheses.
208
* The middle column, representing moderate-frequency organizations, is normalized due to uneven basis for
comparison. (See footnote 287).
Just from this limited piece of statistical material we see that low-frequency
organizations (in the interview) are slightly less occupied with dogmatics, spirituality and
biblical theology – but accordingly more interested in ethics. The moderate-frequency
organizations talk the most about dogmatics, spirituality, and biblical theology. The highfrequency organizations place themselves between the two in every respect, except when it
came to ethics. Here they are at the foot of the table.
The excerpts coded with the tag “Dogmatics” proved to contain the most significant
information for understanding the organizations’ use of discipleship vocabulary. These will be
dealt with at some length in sections 6.2 and 6.3. From the excerpts labeled “Biblical theology”
I was unable to draw anything substantial, and for that reason they will be left out. Excerpts
coded as “Spirituality”, “Ethics”, and “Ministry” will be discussed in brief.
6.1.1 Spirituality
Issues related to spirituality308 are brought up by all the organizations, and they are fairly
evenly distributed. The moderate-frequency cases are somewhat more eager to talk about
spirituality than the rest (representing 44% of the coded excerpts). The low-frequency cases
represent 24%, while the high-frequency cases represent 32% of the excerpts.
The numbers are almost identical when it comes to excerpts about faith practices. The
moderate-frequency cases come out on top, followed by the low-frequency cases and highfrequency cases. When considering statements about life skills and views on life, however, the
standing is altered. Surprisingly the high-frequency organizations represent half of the
excerpts, while the low frequency cases are the least interested in interpreting life, judged by
the number of codes.
Just from considering these codes in isolation it is impossible to point to accordance
between the use of discipleship vocabulary and spirituality. If anything, it could seem as if
organizations at the low-frequency end of the spectrum are somewhat more focused on
practices, while interpretation of life plays a bigger role towards the high-frequency end.
Later, however, in 6.2, the topic of spirituality re-emerges. It then becomes clear that the use
308
Spirituality is in this case understood and used as a descriptive and collective code for various statements
from informants concerning a range of “faith practices” and “life skills”, as well as general reflection about “life
mastery” etc.
209
of discipleship vocabulary in the high-frequency organizations could indicate the making of
space for spirituality within an evangelical tradition.
6.1.2 Ethics
Similarly, when it comes to ethics309 the low-frequency organizations represent a majority of
excerpts coded as “Ethics”. Alone, they stand for two-thirds of the codes labeled “Social
ethics” and half of the codes labeled “Individual ethics”. The codes marked with the label
“Ethics” would show a very different pattern from the rest. Attention to ethical issues was at
its highest in the low-frequency organizations, with one exception: KRIK shows a declining
tendency towards the higher end of the spectrum.
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Ethics
Sosialetikk
Individualetikk
F IG U R E 10: E X C E R P T S C O D E D A S E T H IC S ( IN T O T A L , A S S O C IA L - A N D IN D IV ID U A L E T H IC S ).
From this piece of information it does not seem as if discipleship vocabulary and
ethics harmonize well. From the content of the excerpts it could seem the high-frequency
organizations to a small degree care about ethical issues, while the opposite seems less likely.
Organizations with a clear social ethical agenda, like Changemaker, Norges unge katolikker,
Norges KFUK-KFUM, and Substans. seem less attracted to discipleship language.
I think the most interesting information to be read out of the chart is that the columns
for social ethics and the columns for individual ethics follow one another. Neither are
particularly high among the organizations that use discipleship vocabulary the most. To me it
309
Here, “Ethics” is a collective term and what I see as a descriptive code tag for informants’ statements about
demonstrating ethical reasoning and value-based reflection etc. These statements include both “individual ethics”
where personal behavior and development is the object of reflection, and “social ethics” where the greater
population or society as a whole is in focus.
210
seems somewhat surprising that the high-frequency organizations do not score higher in these
issues, especially on individual ethics. I had expected to see moral values, personal
improvement, and sanctification to be more important to these organizations. The use of
discipleship vocabulary is seemingly not a return to pietism.
6.1.3 Ministry
The code “Ministry”310 was applied to ninety-one unique excerpts in the material. A first
glance left the impression of an even distribution among the three categories of organizations
(Low: 35.16%, Moderate: 32.97%, and High: 31.87%). When we look more carefully at the
child-codes, departing interests among the informants start to emerge. While “preaching”
seems to catch interest across the sample, codes for “diakonia”, “evangelization”, “calling”,
and “mission” evade any expected distribution: Low-frequency organizations emphasize
preaching, diakonia and calling. Moderate-frequency organizations emphasize preaching,
diakonia, evangelization, and mission. High-frequency organizations emphasize preaching,
evangelization, and mission.
120 %
100 %
80 %
60 %
Low
40 %
Moderate
20 %
High
0%
F IG U R E 11: E X C E R P T S C O D E D W IT H V A R IO U S “ M IN IS T R Y ” C O D E T A G S .
Some of these differences are possible to explain, others to justify: the code “calling”
was predominantly ascribed to one organization, Norges unge katolikker. “To be obedient to
the call of Christ” was a recurring formulation in this interview. Whether or not this is
310
Ministry is here a collective term used as a parent code tag for statements about “preaching”, “diakonia”,
“evangelization”, “mission”, etc.
211
conditioned by the informant Gran Martinsen or if this is a term incorporated in the whole
organization, I do not know. I did however get the sense that the calling of Christ was brought
up as the answer to any questions I had about discipleship, or as she said: “We don’t speak
about discipleship, but we speak a lot about being obedient to the call of Christ.”
Other child-codes are more interesting. We should note that the high-frequency
organizations represent two-thirds of the codes labeled “evangelization”, and about one-half
of the “mission” codes. The distribution of codes leaves the impression that those in favor of
using discipleship in their official documents also are in favor of concepts typically associated
with evangelicalism. This seeming relation between the use of discipleship and evangelical
theology will be examined more in depth in 6.2 and 6.3. This will nuance and clarify this
relationship. Interestingly enough, the high-frequency organizations are also overrepresented
in the Dogmatics codes of “life-mastering” and “sacraments”, topics less associated with
evangelical theology. This alone suggests discipleship to be involved in a more complex
theological negotiation. Still, it would be unfair not to give this observation some attention:
the high-frequency organizations seem to have a tendency towards an evangelical strand of
Christianity. I will later argue that discipleship could be understood as a sign coming from an
evangelical tradition, and not necessarily a sign of allegiance to evangelicalism.
By far the most important findings for now are however connected to “Dogmatics”,
and especially to soteriology (understood as “the works of Christ”) and Christology
(understood as “the person of Christ”). I will in the following present and interpret this part of
the material – with a special, but not exclusive, interest in the high-frequency organizations.
6.2
Soteriological perspectives
In the previous sub-chapter I pointed out that discipleship is connected to elements of classic
evangelical theology, salvation being one of them. The main reason for this is the fact that the
informants did so themselves. It would be an exaggeration to claim that discipleship theology
carries a soteriology of its own. But listening to the informants has made me convinced that
salvation is a key to understanding discipleship. Discipleship in the material seems to
challenge, and thereby feed from, two different kinds of soteriological practices: (a) an open
and inclusive concept of salvation through infant baptism in a folk-church setting, on one side,
and (b) a more narrow and exclusive concept of salvation through personal acceptance,
repentance, and faith in a prayer-house and free-church setting, on the other. The use of
discipleship vocabulary seems to represent a type of third position between the two frontiers.
Grønvik (Korsvei) made a point of this in the interview:
212
One of the reasons that low-church ideology and folk-church ideology are seen as opposites is
that both over-emphasize the same question: What is the minimum requirement in order to get
saved? This question is a driver in many low-church settings, and likewise the driver in the
folk church: The minimum requirement for salvation. The answer from low-church people is:
baptism and conversion – at least conversion. For the people in the folk church the minimum
requirement for salvation is baptism.
Grønvik is but one who experiences both positions and practices as problematic. His
main assumption is that discipleship responds to, and to some extent solves, this problem. The
folk church and low-church are in many ways far apart in how they understand salvation, but
they share the same problem: an exaggerated focus on the minimum requirement for salvation,
he says. In discipleship he finds theology and language to challenge, but also to unfold an
expanding alternative to this minimum. Others articulate salvation in relation to discipleship
somewhat different to Grønvik, but all the time in a critique of either folk church or prayerhouse or both.
6.2.1 Discipleship as critique of folk-church soteriology
In Grønvik’s criticism of the folk church, Bonhoeffer’s book on discipleship is fundamental, a
book he in fact translated into Norwegian.311 In the interview he quotes the famous beginning
of Chapter one, “Cheap grace is the death enemy of the church”. Despite acknowledging a
major contextual distance in time and situation to that of the author, Grønvik relates to
Bonhoeffer’s fight as one very relevant for today. He sees cheap grace as grace taken for
granted, grace anticipated, and without the expectation of having to change one’s life. Costly
grace is, on the other hand, the grace you receive because you did not manage to change your
life, he says. For Grønvik the decisive point is to preach grace in a way that leads to
discipleship. “For us,” he says, “discipleship could rightly be read as a frontal attack on a
folk-church ideology that generously hands out sacraments without any further expectations.
Bonhoeffer refuses to separate the two: only the believer is obedient, only the obedient
believes.” Grønvik is not critical of the folk church as such – he has for decades been an
ordained minister in just this church. But he argues that grace and works must be held
together, spoken of together, and lived out together. “The entire ethical thinking of
Bonhoeffer,” he says, “comes out of the encounter with Jesus Christ”.
When the book [the new Norwegian translation] was published I was to say something about it.
I said that at the deepest level this is not a book about discipleship, but a book about Jesus
Christ, and what happens to people that meet him, and from an existential meeting with Jesus
Christ makes moves and takes steps. Levi sitting in the tax collector’s booth would have
311
Bonhoeffer, Etterfølgelse.
213
remained seated if he had not stood up and taken a step. This step was only possible because it
was Jesus who called him. The calling of Jesus was also the creating word that equipped and
empowered him to take that step. It is Jesus who both calls and equips him for discipleship. It
is Jesus first and last and before and after.
The entire book is about Jesus and that the relationship to him is the heart of the matter – a
relationship that today is formed through the Church.
In the second part of the book, when he [Bonhoeffer] writes about how it is possible for us,
millennia later, to follow Jesus as if he were still present, it is because of the existence of the
Church. The Church is the body of Christ in the world today. Through the sacraments we are
called to a life in discipleship, in principle the same way as the people that encountered Jesus
face to face. Baptism is so to say not complete before the step is taken. (…)
Knowing a bit about the Norwegian context, this is quite radical as Grønvik appears to
suggest that baptism is incomplete without works. In a Lutheran church a core value is to
discern between law and gospel, works and grace, and possibly also between discipleship and
baptism. Nothing must cover or ruin the pure grace. But several informants, not only Grønvik,
suggest that this discerning practice has gone wrong in the folk church, and that the received
grace and the human contribution in fact have been too sharply separated. Fagermoen, for one,
suggests in line with Grønvik that baptism is only a starting point. Discipleship is for him
everything that comes after and follows from baptism.
What is discipleship in a Norwegian folk church and infant baptizing setting? This is an
exciting question. I believe that baptism and faith express the same: the starting point.
Discipleship starts in that moment a person begins to believe in Jesus, totally independent of
how much that person has understood or not. It is something there that God sees, that we don’t,
that now (!) is a moment of new birth and justification. Everything happens in a single
moment. That is what we Lutherans teach. This is a moment God sees, and this is when
disciple-making starts.
Like Grønvik, Fagermoen also warrants his view in the Bonhoefferian concept of
cheap grace. The two informants I have quoted here seem in agreement. They both find
support in Bonhoeffer, they point towards baptism as a starting point that calls for something
more, they emphasize the role of Jesus’ calling for enabling discipleship, and they both think
that the folk church has toned down the link to discipleship. There is however one major
difference between the two in their view of salvation, it seems: the perspective. For
Fagermoen salvation happens instantly in a moment – it is a clear division between the before
and after, and the after-part is where discipleship takes place. Grønvik is somewhat more
processual oriented in his entire understanding. We will see this division more clearly in the
following, but this is a crucial soteriological point connected to discipleship.
214
We will end our discussion about discipleship as criticism of folk church soteriology
here. First of all because it is not all that surprising – we have after all localized discipleship
outside modality.312
6.2.2 Discipleship as critique of evangelical soteriology
I have already pointed out the evangelical tendency in discipleship. But before we secure
discipleship as evangelicalism we should again listen to the informants. Their statements
nuance this first impression. This chapter sets out to report on these statements – with a
special interest in how discipleship not only affirms an evangelical soteriology, but also to a
large degree expands, challenges, and even opposes it.
Despite the opposition we find in discipleship to modal theology, it is even more
interesting that discipleship also entails a rather direct critique of theology and practice found
in sodality. Discipleship vocabulary is not only a tool for radicalizing a generous and
sometimes indistinct Norwegian folk-church. Its most significant use is as a tool in a
theological revision of free-church and prayer-house movements from within. We see this
most clearly in the area of soteriology.
Expanding evangelicalism I: Centered set theology (Korsvei)
In the interview Grønvik offers us a background against which we could, and maybe should,
interpret his theological utterances: his upbringing in the prayer-house movement. The
theology of this conservative, low-church, lay, evangelical, Lutheran, pietistic, missionary
movement has had a tremendous impact on Norwegian church life. Growing up in this setting
Grønvik always felt as if life itself was under-articulated and suppressed. The right thing to do
was to preach about grace alone. And the right way to do it was in a forensic language. This
way, he says, the Gospel was “imprisoned in the imagery and metaphors of a judicial system”.
He also believes this is the source of the sharp division between those on the inside and those
on the outside in much of the prayer-house movement. Korsvei was partially founded in
reaction to this, he says.
Korsvei is all about giving voice to something we saw as underdeveloped in the tradition we
were raised in. Teaching about life, is not primarily about inside and outside. It’s about
direction. Will the choices you make lead you towards Christ and fellow humans? Will the
choices you make enable the real values in life, what you deep down desire?
312
For more on practices in a Lutheran church setting with starting point in the presence of Christ and in relation
to baptism, see: Norheim, Practicing baptism: Christian practices and the presence of Christ.
215
As he now sees it, evangelicals have overstated the first steps of faith – that of
becoming a believer. And this black/white understanding of salvation has spread even to
ethical reflection. Either you live right or wrong, either according to God’s will or not. “We
[Korsvei] have not consciously toned down the atonement death of Jesus, but we have
certainly toned up the relational emphasis. This was probably an even greater shortage in
1985 than today. But the relational is the main thing in discipleship.” Listening to Grønvik, it
becomes evident that for him, discipleship marks a theological alternative not only to the
bargained grace of the folk church, but even more so, to the imprisoned Gospel and ethics of
the prayer-houses. Already at this point Grønvik has underlined two factors that challenge
classic evangelical soteriology: direction and relation. For him these are crucial. To explain,
he lights the candle on the table between us. He starts to gesture with his hands.
When I hold my hand close to the light you can tell that the light makes an impact on me. Out
here [Grønvik demonstrates by withdrawing his hand away from the candle] it is not as easy to
see. But no one can claim that I am beyond the light’s field of force. I find the light metaphor
fitting for speaking about becoming a Christian and being a follower in an inclusive manner.
You can still be a follower even if you are pretty off-center and in the periphery. The goal
should be to draw so close [to the light/Christ] that much of your life is effected by what you
see when you approach Christ.
They did not directly warn us against good works in the tradition I grew up in – good works
should not have too much of our attention. It is of course easy to caricature today. It was said
they [works] could obstruct the pure grace. There is something pent-up within all of this, I
think. In discipleship I find a more dynamic understanding of the gospel, about the inside and
outside, and about good works. I simply do not find the same sharp division in either Paul or
in the Gospels between faith and works as I experienced in my upbringing.
The discipleship vision Grønvik describes resembles what is often referred to as
“centered set” theology. Paul Hiebert, a missional anthropologist, is most often credited as the
initial theologian to draw on the mathematical concept of set theory.313 The core point is that
church and churches have often been organized as “bounded set” groups – the counter part of
“centered set” – with clear membership understanding of “in” and “out”. Centered set
theology does not focus upon the boundaries, but the center, or more precisely, the motion
towards the centered point. In this theory, any element (human being) moving towards the
center (Christ), no matter how far off, belongs to the group. Phyllis Tickle, for one, has
argued that “centered set understanding of membership allows for a clear vision of the focal
point, the ability to move toward that point without being tied down to smaller diversions, a
sense of total egalitarianism with respect for differing opinions, and an authority moved from
313
Paul G. Hiebert, Anthropological reflections on missiological issues (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1994).
216
individual members to the existing center.”314 Centered set theology has in the last decade or
so found its way into ecclesiology, most notably in and through the Emerging church
movement.315 What is remarkable in Korsvei is that we here find the same theology dressed up
in discipleship language, as the motion towards a center.
Expanding evangelicalism II: Anti-antinomianist theology (Laget)
The theological assumptions of Fagermoen are on several points remarkably similar to those
of Grønvik. We saw above (5.2.1.) how his understanding of discipleship also entails a
critique of folk-church soteriology. But as in the case of Grønvik, his critique of the
soteriology of the prayer-house movement is at least as strong and at least as outspoken.
Fagermoen comes to this from a different angle than that of Grønvik. He is, contrary
to Grønvik, not an ordained minister in the Church of Norway but formally and emotionally
associated with the prayer-house movement. Prior to his job in Laget he held several positions
in one of the bigger and more conservative prayer-house organizations, NLM. He does
however demonstrate a will and agenda to renew this low-church prayer-house movement
from within, which makes his critique, I think, even more noteworthy. Regarding salvation,
he states for instance:
I find a lot of antinomianism in Norwegian prayer houses. I would claim, if I may, that the
focus on objective grace becomes so important that it seems impossible to contribute with
anything yourself. We can of course not contribute to our own salvation, but many people
perceive this as if they are unable to contribute on other areas as well: I cannot fight sin, I
cannot structure my Bible reading, my prayer life, and I cannot establish a biblical practice
regarding the poor. That would be legalistic. You end up in one of the ditches. We sing
“Everything is done, I cannot do anything” in one of our songs. This is true about salvation –
but this is also all that gets talked about. The Christian life is left out. This is a practical form
of antinomianism.
Needless to say, Fagermoen is very critical of this part of the prayer-house tradition.
For him discipleship represents an attempt at giving voice to an active opposition to this kind
of theology. Disciple-making is for him to reinstate and empower Christian people to regain
initiative in their own lives and to restore an active attitude towards Christian practice. This
way one could say that discipleship is anti-antinomianism. From how I hear Fagermoen, he
argues for discipleship and against antinomianism along two lines. First, in order to reach the
state the prayer-house movement is in today, much solid and sound biblical theology of
314
Phyllis Tickle, The great emergence: how Christianity is changing and why (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books,
2008).
315
See for instance Eddie Gibbs and Ryan K. Bolger, Emerging churches: Creating Christian community in
postmodern cultures (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2005).
217
discipleship has been left out in the past. Second, discipleship is vital in order to attain the
solidity demanded of a Christian life today, in an open and fearless response to contemporary
culture.
We deceive people. It is too puny and irresolute only to offer the objective – only to offer
salvation after death is puny and very unbiblical. The Bible has a much fuller message to offer
than salvation and getting to heaven when you die.
I think we should have greater ambitions for our time here on earth. I believe God has that. I
believe Jesus has greater ambitions for us than saving us, storing us in a bell jar, and taking us
home to God. That bell glass could be a Christian bubble, and I think Laget has represented
this attitude in our past. We have hidden.
Grønvik and Fagermoen have much in common – especially in their diagnoses of the
prayer-house movement soteriology. Life has been under-communicated, and the receiving
nature of the Lutheran grace alone has been over-communicated. They also want to revitalize
Christian practices in their settings – and they both name this shift “discipleship”.
Still, I think we can and should discern between the two. For Fagermoen it is vital to
keep the punctual, objective and passive nature of salvation – discipleship is that which comes
after salvation. For Grønvik discipleship is more of a process that might in fact start before
the salvific point. The fact that his centered set theology model to some degree refrains from
ascribing a fixed point where salvation takes place, is of course not the same as saying that
salvation is not there. Still I find it reasonable to think that for Grønvik it is even important to
make the salvific point somewhat blurry.
Expanding evangelicalism III: The Gospel of the Kingdom (Ungdom i Oppdrag)
We will now see a third attempt at expanding evangelical soteriology in the material. This
time, not as centered set theology or as a renewal of human contribution, but framed as
Kingdom of God theology. Still I see the three attempts as different expressions of the same
theological hunger: the loosening of a soteriology experienced as too tight and rigid, a
soteriology that reduces life instead of one that nurtures and affirms it.
We meet appraisal for the New Testament concept of Kingdom of God in the sayings
of several informants in the material. We heard for instance Kilde Aarebrot describe his
rediscovery of Jesus’ teaching on the Kingdom of God in the Gospel as a decisive chain of
events – marking a before and after in the development of Sub-church and Substans – shifting
his theology from a “traditional” to a more social aware and practice oriented purpose. For
Grønvik, the Kingdom of God has been an important part of his theology for decades –
interpreted as a possibility to contribute to a better world of liberated zones of God’s kingly
218
presence on earth, and a direct link from the Incarnation of Christ to Christian practice. In the
following we will listen to Nordli in Ungdom i Oppdrag. He not only relates the Kingdom of
God to discipleship; more importantly, he uses it as a concept to make space for life itself
within an evangelical faith. This way his theological assumptions also relate to Grønvik’s
centered set theology and Fagermoen’s anti-legalistic understanding of human action.
Nordli’s starting-point is similar to the other two. He seems in search of theological
concepts that could broaden the understanding of life itself and Christian life within and from
an evangelical tradition. As for the other two informants, Nordli acknowledges the importance
of discerning between grace and works, yet bringing them closer together than what much of
(Lutheran) evangelical theology and practice has managed in the past. In the interview he not
only relates the Kingdom of God to discipleship. He also talks about two different Gospels:
the Gospel of the cross and the Gospel of the kingdom, signifying two different directions of
relations in the Christian message. The Gospel of the cross relates human beings vertically to
God, the Gospel of the kingdom relates humans horizontally to other humans. The first is
most central, but the second is as important. The first centers on salvation and what Jesus has
done – the second on human initiative and action surrounding it. In his own words the Gospel
of the kingdom, and also discipleship, is making Jesus Lord over all aspects of life. Without
the Gospel of the kingdom, the Gospel is not complete.
AN: I imagine a circle. It represents everything that is central and everything that is perfect.
The entire circle is the kingdom of God. The Gospel of the cross is the center in the Gospel of
God’s kingdom. But the Gospel of the cross – atonement and reconciliation etc. – is not the
entire Gospel. It won’t give you the entire Gospel. It’s not the entire circle. It is more to it than
God having reconciled himself with human beings – although this is the center of it all.
Q: Do I understand you correctly if this is how you imagine discipleship? Would it be fair to
say that you imagine discipleship as everything that exceeds and follows that of being
forgiven?
AN: Yes, it is about having Jesus as Lord. Jesus is Lord, not in the sense that we have the
ticket to heaven in our back pocket, but that Jesus is Lord over all aspects of our lives. We all
have struggles in our lives. But the goal is that the Lord would be Lord – not only on Sundays,
but on Monday as well and over all aspects. If he is Lord, he is Lord over all and everywhere.
One could always discuss, whether or not this kind of lordship imagery expands or
reduces life. The interesting thing here is, first of all, his agreement with other informants that
evangelical theology is in need of deeper and more open expressions for life and
relationships; and second, that he and his organizations in fact have worked out theological
concepts in order to meet this need.
219
6.2.3 Preliminary summary: Expanding evangelical spirituality
From this it becomes clear that the use of discipleship vocabulary on a strategic level in
Norwegian Christian youth organizations could mark an implicit criticism when it comes to
how salvation is understood. The critique goes two ways: Folk-church soteriology is criticized
for unwillingness to speak with any expectation of what follows after baptism. Evangelical
soteriology, most evident in the pietistic prayer-house tradition, is criticized for over-focusing
the redemptive act of God and eternal salvation to such an extent that it delimits life this side
of death. This expansion is carried out in different ways. I have in this chapter identified three
attempts at using discipleship vocabulary that expand and make room for a spirituality that
embraces more of life316; while at the same time remaining loyal to an evangelical
understanding of God’s redemptive work of Christ. I have summarized the three attempts as:
centered set theology, anti-antinomist theology, and Kingdom of God theology.
This way discipleship vocabulary could be seen as a code word for the affirmation of
evangelical soteriology, but not in an uncritical way. Discipleship vocabulary is introduced to
constructively expand and critically challenge what is experienced as delimiting in this
tradition.
6.3
Christological perspectives
Now turning to theology in a more strict sense, as God being the object of our talk, I will
examine how the informants relate their understanding of discipleship to their assumptions
about God. It will be increasingly clear that this chapter predominantly engages in
Christology. For obvious reasons we would expect discipleship or the following of Christ to
predominantly be connected to the second person of the Trinity. The informants in the
interview also confirmed this. It was in relation to Christology that the informants had most to
say, but also where the clearest findings occurred.
The chart below displays the number of excerpts tagged with the “Dogmatic” theology
code “God” (left column) and its belonging child-codes “God, the Father”, “Jesus Christ”,
“The Holy Spirit”, and the “Trinity” – distributed on high-, moderate-, and low-frequency
organizations. Just from the chart it is possible to observe that the informants in fact did not
talk too much about God. We should therefore be careful not to draw too bold conclusions
316
There is a relation in much of what I have described here to Heelas and Woodhead’s concept of “spirituality
of life”. The one decisive difference I see is that my informants remain loyal to organized religion. Heelas and
Woodhead, Religion in modern times: An interpretive anthology; Paul Heelas and Linda Woodhead, The
spiritual revolution: Why religion is giving way to spirituality (Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2005).
220
based on this low number of excerpts (n=58 total).317 What I do believe this overview has to
offer, and the way I used it, was as a pointer to further investigation.
35
30
25
20
High
15
Moderate
10
Low
5
0
God,
total
(n=58)
The
Father
(n=14)
Jesus
Christ
(n=33)
Holy
Spirit
(n=3)
Trinity
(n=8)
F IG U R E 12: E X C E R P T S C O D E D A S T A L K A B O U T G O D .
The first and third columns in the chart are the most interesting.318 The first column
refers to the distribution of total God-talk. Organizations of all categories talk about God in
the interviews, but as we see, the organizations in the moderate-frequency category do so with
twice the frequency of the other two. This little piece of information suggests, at the least, that
having much to say about discipleship and having much to say about God is far from
proportionate. The two seem in fact fairly disconnected. When we compare the very high- and
the very low-frequency organizations, we see that the number of excerpts about God are fairly
equally distributed.
This chapter will predominantly investigate the assumptions hidden in the excerpts
coded “Jesus Christ” (third column). By considering these in isolation, we find a much similar
pattern of distribution to the one we did on excerpts about “God, total”. By considering the
distribution of excerpts labeled “Jesus Christ”, it becomes clear that the high-frequency
organizations represent the smallest share. I must admit I expected a different outcome, and a
far greater interest in talking about Jesus Christ among the high-frequency organizations.
After all, discipleship translates “following Jesus” in its most basic sense. Astonished by this
fact, I worked and reworked my coding, but without finding significant misreadings of the
material. Having much to say about discipleship is obviously not proportional to having much
317
We should for instance not place too much significance on the fact that only moderate-frequency
organizations talk about the Trinity and only high-frequency organizations talk about the Holy Spirit.
318
The fourth and fifth columns are of course remarkable in the sense that so few informants say so little about
the Holy Spirit and the Trinity in relation to discipleship. What they actually say, I find of meager interest in
relation to this thesis.
221
to say about Jesus. The two are most definitely not causally connected to one another. The
high-frequency organizations demonstrate that talking about discipleship does not
automatically draw attention to Christ. There is in the moderate- and low-frequency
organizations as great an interest in talking about Jesus Christ as in the high-frequency
organizations. The use of discipleship vocabulary does not automatically, to say the least, fuel
the interest for Jesus Christ. However true, we should take this type of conclusion with some
precaution for a number of reasons.
Firstly, when I went back and looked at the raw occurrences of the terms “Jesus” and
“Christ” in the interview transcripts, I found the occurrences more distributed according to my
own bias. This demonstrates with clarity that codes in an interview-transcripts excerpt are a
product of a reader’s interpretation – in this case, mine. It is a label I have found fitting to
describe the content of what I have interpreted as the main idea in a particular paragraph I
have extracted. A code therefore does not represent a directly quantifiable category. The
occurrences of the terms were somewhat more as expected:
•
•
•
•
The single one informant with most mentions of “Jesus” and/or ”Christ” in the
interviews is from a high-frequency organization.
Two informants, one from a high- and one from a moderate-frequency organization,
follow close behind.
A cluster of four informants representing every category forms a following group.
The informants from two low- and one high-frequency organization share the place at
the very bottom.
While these findings are seemingly contradictory to the distribution of codes – at least
in parts – they share one important evidential purpose: they both stultify my previous
assumption that there would be a clear correlation between the use of discipleship vocabulary
on one hand and an outspoken interest for the person of Christ on the other. To advocate
discipleship is not necessarily an indicator, and most definitely no warranty, for a clear focus
on Christ.
The second factor that should moderate our appetite in drawing sharp conclusions
already is connected to a methodological weakness: unfortunately Christology was left out of
the interview guide. In hindsight this feels like a mistake. For the analysis I would have been
better off with one or two explicit question to the informants, for instance about their images
of Jesus etc. We should therefore take into consideration that any talk about Jesus in the
material is driven by the informants’ initiative. This could be perceived as a weakness in the
222
material, making room for coincidence in analysis. At the same time we now know that when
an informant talks about Christology they do so with intent.
Why do I make so much out of this matter? Well, working with these small-scale
quantified data sets was for me the starting point in forming the argument that the use of
discipleship vocabulary by no means warrants an equally sharp and solid Christology. It is a
fair and reasonable assumption, I think, that the initial purpose of following Jesus should be to
envision and conceptualize that what follows logically and practically from the person and
presence of Christ. And in doing so one would expect a minimum of attention given to the
one who is followed. I would argue that the main person in a Christian discipleship
relationship is Christ. This seems partially forgotten as soon as discipleship is conceptualized
as something for and in itself. In theological terms, a practical theology of discipleship does
not in practice value systematic theology, and especially not Christology, as the resource it
deserves to be.
I still do believe that the use of discipleship on a strategic level in Norwegian Christian
youth organizations represents the intention of being Christologically grounded and
outspoken. I am not equally convinced, however, that discipleship clearly represents the same
practice. It is only fair, then, to challenge various understandings of discipleship from a
perspective of Christology. Do they in fact run the risk of overshadowing Jesus? Could they
function as false security for a firm Christological basis? If we understand discipleship as a
way of following Jesus, an impending danger would be to over-articulate the “way of
following” part, leaving “Jesus” in the dark. These, and similar questions create a background
when in the following we revisit some of the informants’ statements about their attempts at
relating discipleship to Christology.
6.3.1 Christo-centric discipleship
It is not surprising that Grønvik, once again, is the one informant who has reflected the most
about theology implied in the use of discipleship vocabulary. He has after all been in a
reflecting environment defined by a curiosity to grasp what it entails to be a disciple since the
1970s. He is also the one informant who links Christology to discipleship in the most insistent
way. This becomes evident even in his speech. It is striking how he consequently in the
interview only talks about being disciples/followers or discipleship of Jesus/Christ, never only
as disciples/followers or discipleship without further specification. In this he represents an
exception among the informants.
223
Korsvei is not only the organization in the sample with the highest frequency in usage
of discipleship vocabulary in official documents, it is also the organization, possibly together
with Ungdom i Oppdrag, where it has been used most consistently over time. Discipleship is
not new or thrilling to either of them. This element in Grønvik’s vocabulary was something I
realized upon reading the transcripts, so I never asked him explicitly about the background for
this seemingly automatic and deliberate connection of discipleship and Christology. Luckily,
in the interview Grønvik says something about the reflection that underlies his manner of
speaking on his own initiative.
We point at Jesus Christ as the center of faith and at some consequences following from it.
It was not good Lutheran theology, in the mid-eighties, to claim a direct link between
incarnation and social ethics. But right from the start we claimed that since God had become
human being in Jesus Christ, to follow him had significance for how human beings live their
life in the world. We grew up with a great divide between the regiments, and the first, second,
and maybe the third use of the law. Everything having anything to do with making the world a
better place was to be deduced from the first article of faith: being in the world of the creator
together with people of good will. This is of course quite all right, but right from the start we
claimed that discipleship, if we were to follow Christ, it would have to be significant for
social-ethical matters. This had to do with what we read in the Gospels; Jesus was for instance
especially concerned with the dangers of wealth and people in poverty. And how were we to
understand the healing and nature-miracles [of Jesus], if not as the Kingdom of God being a
healing force in the world? That’s why we understand discipleship – being followers of Jesus
– as motion. [A disciple of Jesus] cannot do anything but to move on out in the world and to
give his best at making it a better place.
As we see, discipleship is here not only bound to Christ linguistically and in thinking.
Discipleship is also practically laid out as consequences following from the center of faith,
Jesus Christ. Grønvik himself points at the Kingdom of God, Incarnation, and the third use of
the Law319 to be theological concepts that bridge the person of Christ to social ethics. But it is
disciples of Jesus today, understood as ordinary human beings following Jesus, who initiate
and make this bridge possible in real life. We clearly see how discipleship never becomes an
activity or a concept in itself. It remains a role throughout – carefully defined by Christ as
center. More than anywhere else, we see this in the objective clause of the movement. The
very first sentence states: “Korsvei wants to inspire and challenge people to seek intimate
relationship with Jesus and be united with him in the fight for life of our world.” Grønvik
elaborates in the interview how these two sentences were inspired from keeping a theology of
kingdom of God and a theology of discipleship together:
319
The third use of the Law is drawn from the formula of Concord, article VI, and understands the Law as
guidance for Christian life: “after they are regenerate […] they might […] have a fixed rule according to which
they are to regulate and direct their whole life”. There is in Protestant circles a wider agreement concerning the
first two uses of the Law, while the third use has stirred more debate.
224
We were all inspired by Bishop Utnem’s book, The earth will certainly become new320, which
underlines that people are not going to heaven but that heaven is coming to earth. This
characterized our preaching on the kingdom of God and the entire preaching concerning the
restoration of all of God’s creation
Already in the beginning of his ministry Jesus proclaimed the kingdom of God, including the
important word “repent”. And directly after that he told people: “Follow me”. An idea we
have in Korsvei is that God’s kingdom has come close as an experience that we can share and
by following Jesus we can contribute in making God’s kingdom present – a thought about
continuous incarnation, if you will.
The other element of our objective clause, or both elements in fact, are highly inspired by Edin
Løvås. He has some definitions about being a disciple: “To be a disciple is to live in a strong
person-fellowship [sic] with Jesus Christ”. He has also another one saying that “to be a
disciple is to identify with Jesus Christ’s interests in the world”.
In Korsvei we see an example of a Christo-centric discipleship. Linguistically,
theologically, and practically they seem to insist on the relevance of the person of Christ for
discipleship.
6.3.2 Christ-encountering discipleship
The vision of Misjonsforbundet Ung is the same today as it was in 1912. It is fundamentally
Christological: “Children and youth for Christ and the Congregation”. Ree Sunde even claims
that in her time as executive the organization has polished the “heart of the vision” – to ensure
that young people get to meet Christ. This renewed emphasis on congregational Christocentricity approximately overlaps in time with the re-occurrence of discipleship vocabulary in
their strategic documents.321 Discipleship is the (new) telos of this organization – a telos that
implies a shift in focus from activity-based youth work towards a more Christ-driven ministry.
We must always see disciple-making as a goal and not the activities as a goal, because this
could get us caught in a trap we need cool projectors, cool games, and other cool stuff to
attract youths. […] Of course we don’t want our congregations to be ordinary youth clubs, we
want them to do disciple-work but with a taste of hobby, culture and leisure – they have to
know what the core is.
The assumption that discipleship in Misjonsforbundet Ung is rooted in Christology
receives further affirmation when Ree Sunde in the interview tells about the influence of Edin
Løvås, a lifelong member of Misjonsforbundet. As in the case of Korsvei, he has also here
inspired and informed the shaping of discipleship. Ree Sunde tells with enthusiasm how he
has been a support to her personally in her work, coming by the office on a regular basis,
presenting new ideas, and offering theological and social support. Contrary to Korsvei, it is
320
321
Erling Utnem, Visst skal jorden bli ny! Det bibelske framtidshåp (Oslo: Luther, 1987).
See 3.8 above.
225
not the content of his books that have shaped discipleship in Misjonsforbundet Ung. It is more
than anything else his modeling of a repetitive, life-long Christian practice – discipleship.322
When in their forties and fifties many still live on the experiences of encounters with Jesus
from their youth. This is why “disciple-pulse” has such importance also for grown-ups, to
[help them] identify their spiritual fountains at all times; to find a heartbeat and pulse in their
encounters with Jesus; to learn something new at all times; and to have the expectation that it
is possible to get to know God through all of life and always learn something from him.
In Misjonsforbundet Ung, unlike Korsvei, Christology does not seem to be the center
from which an entire understanding of discipleship is drawn. A rather different pattern
appears. Discipleship in Misjonsforbundet Ung relates not primarily to Christ-ology,
understood as words and truths about Christ, but more as a Christ-encountering practice.
Discipleship here is understood as the practice of encountering Jesus regularly, again and
again, through all of life. Or to be even more specific: discipleship is the experience of
encountering Jesus, and the life that emerges out of these encounters with the living Christ.
Ree Sunde’s elaborations on the “disciple-pulse” concept support this claim. Disciple-pulse
refers both to a specific program of written resources etc. and to a more general understanding
as any practice or discipline that aims at encountering Jesus with a certain regularity or pulse.
Back to our main question: How is discipleship related to Christology in
Misjonsforbundet Ung? It is beyond doubt that Misjonsforbundet links discipleship to the
person of Christ, in an experiential manner. It is the practice of repeatedly seeking the
encounter with Jesus. And maybe we could stretch things as far as to say that it describes a
life that lives out these encounters.
What we do not find, however, is an understanding of discipleship as a kind of
spirituality that reflects the person of Christ or the works of Christ in other areas of life. There
is simply no deep theological understanding of what discipleship is, based in Christology. It
would be unfair to expect practitioners to have thoroughly thought through every bit of their
operant theologies. At this point there seems to be an untapped theological potential.
6.3.3 Christo-secluded discipleship
In 6.2.2 we saw how the relationship of discipleship and soteriology in Laget revealed traces
of an anti-antinomianist attitude. Fagermoen explained how he felt his own prayer-house
tradition was driven by a fear of legalism; and how participation and practice had suffered
under a misunderstood concept of recipient grace alone. Now, he wants to let loose Christian
322
For more, see 4.1.2 above.
226
practice and individual initiative – a shift that he has labeled discipleship. It is against this
background we now approach the discipleship/Christology relationship again, and discover a
third type of relationship to appear.
Regardless of this shift, and contrary to what one might assume, it is still of utmost
importance for Fagermoen to remain faithful to the concept of the objective basis for salvation.
Jesus’ achievements alone, on the cross and in the resurrection, are for him all that makes it
possible even to be a Christian. For this reason Jesus appears primarily in the imagery of
savior, even in Fagermoen’s understanding of discipleship. Salvation is, from a human
perspective, to be received in passivity as an underserved act of grace and without personal
contribution. God’s righteousness is declared unto humans and received through faith and
sacraments – in other words, classic Evangelical-Lutheran teaching.
When Fagermoen starts to talk about discipleship, things are a bit different.
Discipleship for him represents the practical side of being saved: everything that follows from
salvation. In discipleship people are invited to fight sin, discipline their habits, and practice
compassion etc. While the mode of human beings in salvation is passive, now in discipleship
it is active. One challenge then, is to avoid being active in such a way that it tampers with the
objectiveness of salvation.
One of the ways Fagermoen argues his way around this big classical dilemma is by
distinguishing between evangelization and disciple-making. Evangelizing takes place prior to
the point of salvation addressing the unsaved – while discipleship first takes place after
having received salvation. This differentiation might seem somewhat technical or even
artificial, but I understand it as an attempt to insist on the passive reception of objective
salvation.
Similarly he argues for a distinction between faith and discipleship. In his mind they
must not be confused: one is received in grace, the other is more driven by personal initiative
and intention. Fagermoen describes discipleship as a process of “loving Jesus more and more”,
“sanctification”, “maturation”, “growth”, “reaching out”, and “deepening the foundation”.
The drivers for this discipleship process seem to be “vision” and “want”, in other words one’s
own resources.
I find a number of points interesting in what Fagermoen underlines, especially how he
contrasts the mode of salvation to the mode of discipleship. From a human perspective
salvation happens in a hyper-passive mode while discipleship is more of a hyperactive mode.
227
Fagermoen says he personally experiences this contrast as liberating, which is interesting. It is
however fully possible to experience this contrast as a confusing conflict – legalistic even.
The main problem in this, however, is not the contrast in human activity level in
salvation and discipleship. A more fundamental problem is on the other side of the table, and
how the activity level of Christ is described and understood in the mode of salvation and in
the mode of discipleship.
The activity level of human beings and the activity level of Christ seem in
Fagermoen’s understanding inversely proportional. In salvation, relying on Christ’s work
alone leaves no room for human activity, whereas in discipleship, initiating one’s own efforts
makes the space for Christ’s contribution smaller. In discipleship Christ gets a more secluded
and supportive role. There are only few traces of a present Christ and a Christ at work in
Fagermoen’s understanding of discipleship. Jesus is still understood mainly in the imagery of
a savior. Christology draws primarily on what the Gospels report on what he historically did.
To me, therefore, there seems to be a shortage of Christological awareness in this
understanding of discipleship.
In the case of Misjonsforbundet Ung we saw how a charismatic and/or mystic
understanding of encountering Christ’s ongoing presence in the world made the basis for
discipleship. To them, discipleship is all about seeking out and encountering Christ. From
what I see, there is not a similar Christology of ongoing presence that makes possible similar
encounters in the tradition of Laget. As aforementioned, the imagery of Christ is primarily
that of a savior. The result is a Christ active in salvation, while a rather secluded Christ in
discipleship. Needless to say, this leads to a very complex situation when it comes to
discerning human from divine action, justification from sanctification, and salvation from
discipleship. The inherent potential to reconnect to a theology of mission also seems untapped.
There is no general shortage of Christology in Laget. One may still argue that there is
a one-sided and sometimes over-articulated imagery of Jesus the savior. This Christological
lopsidedness seems only partially applicable to discipleship. With the discipleship reform in
Laget, I understand this organization as wanting to expand the understanding of Christian life
to better include also everything that takes place after salvation. The same will to expand their
understanding of Christ has not yet taken place, though. He is still primarily a savior, with the
consequence of a discipleship where Christ is practically secluded.
228
At this point I will briefly revisit the informants of the two moderate-frequency
organizations. They have interesting contributions that might be of potential help for Laget.
Kilde Aarebrot (Substans) and Wirgenes (Trosopplæringen) have obviously stumbled across a
similar dilemma to that of Fagermoen and have tried to expand their understanding of
Christology in relation to discipleship in order to work around it.
Kilde Aarebrot’s wants to challenge, broaden and balance our understanding of Jesus,
depicting him both as savior and teacher. He states that maintaining both roles in a balanced
fashion is important in order to avoid a one-sided emphasis, on either grace or on works. For
him personally the discovery of Jesus as teacher was decisive, the real reason behind
Substans. Although he admits the ideal to be a balance between the two roles of Jesus, he has
found this difficult, coming from a tradition where Jesus primarily was understood as savior.
To his experience, starting with Jesus as savior does not necessarily lead to Jesus the teacher –
and very often just leads to passivity. But for him, re-imagining Jesus as teacher has led him
to a life of activism and ascetism, to use his own words, which again has made him realize the
importance of both Christological roles. A life of Christian practice and actual work with
Jesus as teacher has made him more aware of his own need for a savior: “It is through trying,
and failing, you understand your need for grace,” Kilde Aarebrot says. “When one of the roles
of Jesus is radically understood, it easily represses all others,” he says. His ideal for Substans
is to balance the two. I regard this as a clue that could prove rewarding for Laget if considered.
The other informant, Wirgenes, has expanded Christology in relation to discipleship in
a different direction. For him it is important to underline that discipleship relates to all three
persons in the godhead. The Plan for faith education, in what I earlier called the discipleship
paragraph, understands discipleship according to this: “To be a disciple of Jesus is to live and
learn in a lifelong relationship to the triune God.”323 In the interview I brought this up with
Wirgenes:
Q: It is fairly unconventional to relate discipleship to the Trinity, like you do in the Plan. What
are your thoughts on that?
PEW: It has been important for us to elucidate the Trinity. I would be cautious to say that to
be a follower of Jesus is specifically related to the second article of faith. It is more about
following the triune God in a wide sense – and to relate to God as creator, redeemer, and giver
of life.
To be a disciple is to see oneself not only with an identity in the death and resurrection of
Jesus, but also as being created, with the entire abundance of the biblical concept of God and
323
Trosopplæringen, Gud gir - vi deler: plan for trosopplæring i Den norske kirke: 5. (My transl.)
229
the entire abundance of human identity. Discipleship is also part of the third article of faith’s
koinonia, and the renewal of creation.
I believe working consciously with the concept of discipleship in relation to a wide concept of
God contributes to a renewal of the concept [of discipleship]. Does this say something about
discipleship? Well, if it does, it is an upward adjustment of the concept of discipleship to a
wide concept of identity in relation to the triune God.
In the interview with Fagermoen we saw how Christology was confined to the
imagery of salvation and how this led to a seclusion of Christology in discipleship. This is not
a problem for Fagermoen and Laget only, but for anyone approaching discipleship from an
evangelical background. Christology needs expansion in order to be applicable to discipleship.
In Substans and Trosopplæringen I found two examples of how this could be done. In 7.2.3 I
will suggest a third one, somewhat in line with what we saw in Misjonsforbundet Ung.
6.3.4 Christo-oblivious discipleship
A fourth and final example of how Christology is understood in relationship to discipleship is
found in Ungdom i Oppdrag. The interview confirmed the results from the preparatory study
of the official documents, that the use of discipleship vocabulary plays a central part in the
theology and life of the organization. To some of the informants, especially those from lowfrequency organizations, I approached the topic of discipleship with some caution. This was
however not necessary in the interview with Nordli – both he and I basically went head on,
and we stayed on topic for the entire conversation.
In retrospect, none of the other interviews have puzzled me as much as the interview
with Nordli. In our hour and a half long conversation on discipleship one would expect that
Christology at some point would have been brought to the table. Well – it was not.
What the interview with Nordli demonstrates clearly is that it is entirely possible to
talk about discipleship for 90 minutes without bringing Christology to the conversation in a
substantial way. As I said earlier, I regret not having ascribed Christology a more explicit role
in the interview guide. If it had been important or relevant, there was plenty of opportunity for
him to do so – as all the other informants did. But the fact is that after having coded the
interview transcripts, I was left with one single excerpt coded with the label “Jesus Christ” in
the Ungdom i Oppdrag interview. All together “Jesus” was mentioned five times, out of
which three occurred in the same sentence.
I am not suggesting that Nordli has lost interest in Jesus – he definitely has not.
Ungdom i Oppdrag has a strong emphasis on the historical and present significance of Christ.
Nothing in the material suggests this not the case for Nordli personally. Participation in an
230
interview is of course no test of how many times it is possible to slip the name of the Lord
into one’s answers. I would guess that if the interview had been about the second person of
the Trinity, the informant would have demonstrated both theological reflection and experience
from practice. But all of this makes this finding even more intriguing: that the concept of
discipleship in Ungdom i Oppdrag is oblivious to the person of Jesus Christ. The connection
is there somewhere – I am sure it is – it is just not very evident.
There are reasons for making so much out of this. I am starting to suspect that there is
a relation between consigning Christology to oblivion, on the one hand, and conceptualization
of and mentoring in discipleship, on the other.
Section 4.1 made clear how discipleship is often conceptualized and given marks and
qualities of its own. One should not underestimate the gravitational pull in discipleship
towards conceptualization. As much as I understand how this sometimes could be attractive
for communicative reasons, I also think one should recognize the dangers of doing so. To say
the least, if we establish an understanding of discipleship that makes it stand on its own feet,
we might in practice run the risk of making a concept that could thrive independently of
Christ. In doing so we should at least be aware that discipleship then has traveled from its
point of departure, the physical following of Rabbi Jesus. At least to me, if discipleship is
something for and in itself, independent of Christ, the very concept has become vulnerable for
misuse.
In the material from Ungdom i Oppdrag I observe that (a) discipleship is more
conceptualized (in the form of DTS) here than in any other organization in the sample – and
(b) Christology seems to be forgotten when discipleship is talked about in practice. Again, I
do not have the intention or the material to establish strictly causal relationships, so this
should be taken as a suggestion of a possible connection based on observation.
Yet another phenomenon appears in the extension of this, namely that mentoring is
more important to the concept of discipleship in Ungdom i Oppdrag than in any other
organization. I have several times already mentioned and described how every pupil/disciple
on a DTS gets a mentor available around the clock, and they meet at least once a week. I have
also admitted my own personal ambivalence about this as part of my motivation for
embarking on this study.
In the interview with Nordli we actually touched upon this dilemma several times. So
did I also.
Q: The Gospel of Matthew mentions Jesus saying to his disciples that disciples never should
see themselves as teachers, counselors, rabbis, fathers, or masters – there are different words
231
in different translations. It seems to me as if people talking about discipleship soon end up
with a mentor relationship between one experienced and one less experienced Christian. From
the beginning it was meant to be the following of Jesus, but seems soon to end up in following
a role model.
AN: Yes, I guess it can…
Q: Many people doing discipleship end in a type of mentor-relationship, and for you yourself
it is an important component of DTS…
AN: A really important thing. It is about life.
Q: Every week seems frequent?
AN: No, not when you are supposed to walk through life together…
This excerpt is not representative of the entire interview with Nordli. My questions
were usually more open and not as leading, and his answers were usually lengthier and more
nuanced. But at this point I challenged him, because I see this as a core question: is there in
talking about discipleship a danger of exchanging the New Testament role of the
mentor/master (Christ) for the present day role of the mentor (DTS staff)?
No one in Ungdom i Oppdrag would of course suggest that any mentor is Lord. In
theory the theology is sorted out. Nordli even calls discipleship a process where Jesus is made
Lord in all aspects of life: “He who is Lord shall be Lord over all”.
My impression, still, is that when Christ is not overly expressed as the true mentor and
only teacher of a discipleship relationship, a space is left open that easily can be filled by a
more mature leader or a popular and approachable paternal figure.
If we observe the four high-frequency organizations collectively, there seems to be a
connection between conceptualization, Christology and mentoring in their understanding of
discipleship.
Korsvei has not conceptualized discipleship much, but left it an open concept
formulated as a question. Linguistically, theologically and practically they insist on
discipleship’s relation to Christology, and they experience a high degree of skepticism
towards organized mentoring among members.
Misjonsforbundet Ung has to some extent conceptualized discipleship in a definition,
in programs and in a logo. Its concept is not drawn from Christology, but it understands
discipleship as the practice of encountering Christ. It experiences a shortage of mature
mentors to fulfill the vision of disciple making.
232
Laget is in the process of conceptualizing discipleship as multiplying small groups of
three. It struggles with applying its Christology of salvation to discipleship, but deliberately
makes the small groups asymmetrical – as a form of group mentoring.
Ungdom i Oppdrag has conceptualized discipleship in formal schools. Although Christ
is important to them, Christology is not very evident when discipleship is talked about.
Mentoring, however, is of the utmost importance.
6.4
Preliminary summary: Theology implied in discipleship vocabulary
In this analysis of theology implied in the use of discipleship vocabulary, the most interesting
findings were connected to the four high-frequency organizations and especially what they
said about soteriology and Christology.
The analysis has made clear that the use of discipleship vocabulary on a strategic level
in Norwegian Christian youth organizations marks a constructive attempt to reformulate
soteriology. Implied is a two-way critique: The folk church is criticized for an unwillingness
to speak with any expectation of what follows after baptism. The low church, mainly
understood as the pietistic prayer-house tradition, is criticized for over-emphasizing the
redemptive act of God to such an extent that it delimits many important aspects of life. I have
identified three uses of discipleship vocabulary that have the purpose of expanding the room
for a spirituality that embraces more of life while at the same time staying loyal to a
Protestant understanding of God’s redemptive work of Christ. I have summarized the three
attempts as: centered set theology, anti-antinomist theology, and Kingdom of God theology.
This way discipleship vocabulary could be seen as a code word for the affiliation to, but not
the full affirmation of, classical evangelical soteriology.
The analysis has also shown how the person of Christ is understood and used
differently in different understandings of discipleship. A Christo-centric discipleship draws its
understanding from Christology. A Christ-encountering discipleship understands discipleship
as the practice of encountering Christ. A Christo-secluded discipleship has problems
transposing their image of Christ as savior to the life of the disciple. A Christo-oblivious
discipleship has conceptualized discipleship to such a degree that it appears rather
disconnected from Christology.
I have also suggested, within a particular concept/use of discipleship there might be a
connection between the degree of conceptualization, the level of Christology, and the
understanding of the mentor. For example, a highly conceptualized discipleship, with a
233
remote relation to Christology could leave too much space and emphasis on the authority of a
mentor.
234
7
SUMMARY, SUGGESTIONS AND EPILOGUE
This study has (analytically) described how the use of discipleship vocabulary is understood
on a strategic level in Norwegian Christian youth organizations, or what I have called the
pragmatics of the discipleship phenomenon. The aim of this final chapter is to summarize the
argument (7.1), but also to introduce some suggestive reflections about how the use of
discipleship vocabulary could be improved in the future (7.2). As a final epilogue I revisit the
Great Commission, the disciple text par excellence (7.3).
7.1
Summary: Pragmatics of discipleship
How is the use of discipleship vocabulary understood on a strategic level in Norwegian
Christian youth organizations – with a special focus on ambiguity? This main research
question together with pragmatic theory has framed and driven the analysis of organizations’
official documents and transcripts from interviews with organizational executives.
Chapter 2 described characteristics of the strategically selected sample of ten
organizations, and how a conceptual analysis of their official documents stratified the sample
into low-, moderate-, and high-frequency organizations. The documents revealed several
striking, surprising and seemingly contradictory uses of discipleship vocabulary that were
brought along to the interviews.
Chapter 3 described the informants’ “interpretants” (perceived mental image) of
discipleship. By tracing their underlying assumptions, the various informants demonstrated a
great ambiguity, ambivalence even. With one or two exceptions, the use of discipleship
vocabulary did not represent a theological problem for the informants. There was however a
clear tendency to discern between discipleship as an idea and the actual use of discipleship
vocabulary in practice. I found such discernment in one form or another among most
informants: The theological concept of discipleship is unproblematic for most, and for some
even beautiful. Discipleship vocabulary, however, is more troublesome. It was however clear
that most informants, high- and low-frequency organizations alike, to a large degree had
conceptualized discipleship – a sign of something very specific. What it signified, however,
varied across the sample.
Chapter 4 drew more directly on Morris’ threefold definition of the pragmatic task as
origin, uses and effects. The material indicated that the origins of discipleship vocabulary in
235
the sample could be understood as an interpretative, selective, and compositional practice.
One’s understanding of discipleship is a process of combining excerpts, distilled from a
potentially countless number of theological discourses. I found five unique uses of
discipleship vocabulary in the material. The informants towards the low end of the frequency
spectrum used discipleship vocabulary predominantly as a reference to the twelve and as a
model of ideals. The informants from high-frequency organizations were overrepresented in
using discipleship vocabulary for a mode of spirituality and for a method of influencing. It
also appeared as a marker of modification – at the mercy of the linguistic instinct of each
informant. This chapter has also described the assumed effects of discipleship vocabulary
when introduced to or dismissed from organizational strategies. It also became evident that
the use of discipleship vocabulary on a strategic level could be seen as a linguistic device,
involved in a strategic negotiation between shaping (external) organizational image and
(internal) organizational identity – often indicating a new direction.
Chapter 5 continued where chapter 4 left off, by describing the implications of
discipleship vocabulary for youth ministry. By focusing on ecclesiology, organizational
contribution and purpose, and relational ministry as mentoring, a series of tendencies were
identified: In the use of discipleship vocabulary there is a tendency towards sodality, towards
intentionality, and towards sectarianism. These should be seen as qualities attributed to
discipleship vocabulary by association, and not as properties. It also became clear that some
of the informants had the experience of discipleship vocabulary being misused to advance
unhealthy codependency in mentoring relationships.
The most interesting findings of the theological analysis in chapter 6 concerned
soteriology and Christology in the four high-frequency organizations. The analysis indicated
that the use of discipleship vocabulary on a strategic level in Norwegian Christian youth
organizations marks a critical and constructive attempt to reformulate soteriology. The
critique goes two ways: Against the folk-church’s unwillingness to speak with any
expectation of what follows after baptism, and against the pietistic prayer-house tradition’s
over-emphasis on the redemptive act of God, and with that: focus on eternal salvation, in a
way that reduces the room for life-experiences on earth. Several constructive uses of
discipleship vocabulary on a strategic level were identified. The purpose of these was to make
space for a spirituality that embraces more of life, but without dismissing an evangelical
understanding of God’s redemptive work in Christ or losing a clear sense of purpose. This
236
way discipleship vocabulary could be seen as a code word for the affiliation to, but not the
affirmation of classical evangelical soteriology.
The role of Christology in relation to the use of discipleship vocabulary is unevenly
distributed in the sample. I found the terms Christo-centric, Christ-encountering, Christosecluded, and Christo-oblivious to be adequate descriptive terms for this ambiguous
relationship. There are also indications of a possible correspondence between the degree of
conceptualization, the relation to Christology, and the understanding of the mentor in the use
of discipleship vocabulary on a strategic level in Norwegian Christian youth organizations. A
highly conceptualized discipleship with only a remote relation to Christology leaves too much
to depend on the authority of a mentor.
7.2
Suggestions: Toward an improved use of discipleship vocabulary
In an attempt to remain faithful to documents and informants, I have seen it as important to
restrain my own voice and opinion throughout most of this study. I have made an effort to
read, listen, describe, and analyze from their perspective. But this self-restrained journey has
inevitably also contributed to my own reflection. In conversation with the material I have
reconsidered my own assumptions; discerned, disagreed and discussed. There have even been
creative moments in this maturing process. As things now start to clear up, I feel prepared to
make three suggestions based on this conversation with the material and the findings
summarized above.
Working within a framework of pragmatism, it is expected to contribute with
warranted assumptions that could improve practice. This does to some degree imply a move
from a descriptive mode of analyzing to a more normative mode of theologizing. I do
however hope that my suggestions for improvement are also seen as attempts to spark off a
broader conversation in youth ministry about the use of discipleship vocabulary.
7.2.1 Awareness about thin conceptualization
Each informant and organization had a clear picture of discipleship and the significance
thereof. Their use of discipleship vocabulary was closely related to this understanding. The
high-frequency organizations used discipleship vocabulary because their understanding of
discipleship promised a development they wanted. The low-frequency organizations refrained
from using discipleship vocabulary because, in accordance with their understanding of
discipleship, this would lead them in unfortunate directions. On a whole, the ambiguous
connotation of discipleship, the understanding of what discipleship is and entails, did however
237
vary immensely across the sample. But most informants seemed to have a very specific and
particular understanding of the complex: a concept with a definite origin, for a specific use,
and with given effects or consequences. In most cases I think discipleship was conceptualized
too narrowly.
I have described the impending danger of developing discipleship into concepts,
things in themselves, determined by marks and properties of their own, often distant from its
outset: the following of Jesus. With a few exceptions, clear conceptualization of discipleship
had repressed the role of Christology.
Chapter 5 approached the material from the perspective of youth ministry. We found
in discipleship an educational aim with an inclination towards intentional spirituality (as
opposed to institutional spirituality). We saw how discipleship shapes and is shaped by “sodal”
(as opposed to “modal”) ecclesiology.324 We did also find a tendency to reduce the educational
task to assignment-oriented enculturation – and only exceptionally taking advantage of the
potential that lies in a more comprehensive understanding of discipleship as learning.
Thematizing is an inevitable part of theologizing. The word “discipleship” is in itself a
thematization, a linguistic invention based in New Testament narratives and language. But
much is at stake when discipleship stretches beyond a theme and reaches very concrete
concepts. The difference between thematizing and conceptualizing is significant, I think. The
difference is in degree and not essence. But the difference is noticeable and decisive.
The Disciple Training Schools of Ungdom i Oppdrag, the Disciple Pulse curriculum of
Misjonsforbundet Ung, the three-sided disciple groups of Laget etc. are all examples of
concrete concepts. We could also add the now-abandoned disciple pedagogy in the Church of
Norway. When discipleship is used to brand specific concepts connected to specific
organizations, one runs the risk of narrowing down and taking possession over something that
can only thrive as a shared possession of the entire church. When we listen to the more
skeptical informants, their reluctance toward discipleship is reluctance towards overly
conceptualized discipleships and not a kind of open discipleship allowing ambiguity.
I believe the conceptualization of discipleship has a long tradition. Already in John’s
Gospel, the youngest of the four Gospels, discipleship is starting to comprise specific marks
unknown to the three older Gospels. According to the Evangelist, Jesus promises the twelve
that if they hold to his teaching (8.31), love one another (13.35), and bear much fruit (15.8)
324
“Sodal” refers to an ecclesiology that values internal relationality in a wide sense such as “friendship” and
“fellowship” etc. “Modal”, on the contrary, refers to an ecclesiology that is customary in any given context. See
5.1.4 for more.
238
they are real disciples and would be acknowledged as such by others. John’s Gospel is
probably the earliest post-Easter account of discipleship conceptualization: 2000 years of
church history has added hundreds, if not thousands, of other contextually relevant marks of
discipleship.
I am sympathetic to the way Korsvei uses discipleship vocabulary. To some extent
they refrain from conceptualizing discipleship, but instead pose a question: what does it
mean/entail to follow Jesus today? This way they pinpoint two very important features in
Christian discipleship: (a) Discipleship is open to interpretation. Discipleship for you is not
the same as discipleship for me, and (b) Discipleship is situational: It is the situation we are in,
that determines the appropriate response – essentially what discipleship is. But even in
Korsvei there seems to be an inherent inclination in discipleship towards conceptualizing. Its
“road signs” are answers to the discipleship question.
In the material at hand, and even in the wider body of youth ministry literature, we
realize that the common way to approach discipleship is to determine its marks: Discipleship
is x, y, and z. There might be a time and place to talk about discipleship in such a way. Still, I
understand most definitions of discipleship as the expression of a need in people to
cognitively grasp something that is better off when left open to interpretation. On the level of
ontology, to determine what discipleship is, is in my mind to over-articulate on an unsteady
theological basis. The easiest way to destroy discipleship is to overload it with prefixed
content. But more dramatically, it is to miss the very point. Conceptualizations delimit the
potential in discipleship as “an ambiguous mode of spirituality”.
Not conceptualizing discipleship, however, could open up for attentiveness to Christ in
a given situation. In the midst of complexity it could bring out fresh and faithful responses to
the call of Christ.
7.2.2 Awareness about power issues
To use discipleship as a “method for influence” is in general an example of an unfortunate
conceptualization present in the material. Chapter 4 described how easily discipleship
develops beyond a “mode of spirituality” applied to oneself, to an influencing strategy
directed at others – often promoted as Jesus’ way of influencing. In this the person of Jesus is
replaced with the ministry of Jesus as the model to model. The chapter also described the lack
of awareness in organizations about the various uses of discipleship vocabulary. This became
especially evident in discerning a “mode of spirituality” from a “model for influence”, and in
particular from a “system of mentoring”.
239
It is not entirely coincidental that such an understanding of discipleship picks up speed
today. Several features of Jesus’ ministry as described in the Gospels resonate with today’s
(youth) culture – in and out of church: Relational ministry is a popular way to do youth work
in church – leaving the impression that we could spend time with our youth the way Jesus did.
The number of personal coaches, supervisors, and mentors is at an all-time high in Norway325
– leaving the impression that now is a time to guide our young people in real-life situations –
the way Jesus did. Discipleship vocabulary has picked up speed even in social media
(followers, following etc.) and leadership theory (followership etc.) – and could in some cases
leave the impression that we could and should make others follow us – the way Jesus did.
These and similar kinds of conclusions should sound a warning. Chapter 5 clarified
how discipleship vocabulary belongs to intentional sodality, not institutional modality. The
intimate, enthusiastic, committed, life-sharing, and purpose-driven small group is the habitat
in which discipleship flourishes. Here, discipleship is very seldom “disturbed” by sacraments,
ordinance and office. Authority is informal. Power follows charisma and personality.
Personally I appreciate this kind of church – and I believe the future of the church sits
in a good relationship between the intentional and the institutional church. Still, this study has
convinced me that discipleship generally speaking should be divested of informal authority
and demands for loyalty.
In the introductory chapter I revealed a personal motivation for going into research
with a concentration on discipleship: I needed to identify a gradually growing ambivalence
about discipleship. For me, the issue of both non-transparent personal authority and nontransparent expectations about loyalty had become something of an Achilles’ heel. In
Chapters 4, 5 and 6 this was also the point that was most critiqued by informants. Experiences
with codependency cast the darkest shadows over discipleship as phenomenon in the material.
At this point I would like to be very clear: Following a charismatic leader, or being
accountable to a discipleship group, has never made anyone a disciple in the Christian sense
of the word.
I think there are ways to avoid this. The way Ungdom i Oppdrag wisely underlines
provisionality in its mentoring program, setting up relationships to last for some weeks only,
speak in favor of the program. The expected level of commitment is on the edge of what I
would recommend, but with a time limitation to the relationship a lot of trouble is avoided. I
think group counseling, like the case in Laget, is a safety net. I am also intrigued by the way
325
http://www.vg.no/nyheter/innenriks/rekordmange-personlige-coacher/a/10123747/
240
KRIK encourages peer-relationships as a formative type of co-mentoring and the way
Substans makes the rehearsal of faith practices the center of individual mentoring in a group
setting. I do not think, however, contrary to what several of the informants seem to believe,
that the power-issues of mentoring evaporate if discipleship vocabulary is ruled out of
strategies.
7.2.3 Attentiveness to the presence of Christ
It is utmost important to reinstate Christ as the only non-negotiable sign of discipleship. If
discipleship is not connected to Christ, there will be nobody to follow, and one risks
following substitutes of Christ. Without an intimate connection between discipleship and
Christology, there simply is no discipleship. As long as discipleship insists on being
understood as the following of Christ, there is less room available for any charismatic mentor
or paternal figure. To me, to minimize the personal authority of a discipler is in itself a goal.
A paramount task for any organization involved in discipleship should therefore be critically
and creatively to work out its relation to Christ. The future of discipleship, I believe, turns on
this question.
Part of the problem is the difficulty of discerning between processes of growth and
maturation on one hand and the passive reception of grace on the other. Discipleship is at
times understood as something more than and in addition to salvation – often a kind of growth
process on the bases of a new identity in Christ. Such a viewpoint runs the risk of ending in a
kind of “second blessing” theology, which I do not find particularly sustainable nor well
argued. At other times discipleship is distinguished apart from salvation, as a process that
eventually leads to conversion, or as life-long process that runs through a Christian life
independent of salvation or conversion. Although such a position opens for growth and
practice, it eventually could lead to a dualism between the eternal and the social. A third
position is to try to combine a processual approach to spirituality with a once-and-for-all
reception of God’s redemptive grace in Christ. This is probably the most promising way
forward, though immensely challenging. Chapter 6 demonstrated how easily salvation gets
undermined in discipleship. I imagine this to be particularly hard with a Protestant/Lutheran
background. Borrowings from other traditions might be a small step in the right direction. To
constantly remind oneself, engage in, and negotiate the relationship of discipleship and
soteriology, seems like a necessary and fruitful way forward. The contribution of this thesis
on this point is merely to support the importance of such and similar emphases.
241
Discipleship’s relation to Christology does not represent a similar intellectual or
theological challenge. This is more a question of awareness and attentiveness – and a
constantly reminding oneself and others that Christian discipleship is always a discipleship to
Jesus. When I have pointed out above that some examples of discipleship in the material have
a remote relationship to Christology, I do not for one minute believe this is intentional. This is
more a question of making aware.
If developing an understanding and use of discipleship vocabulary that reconnects to
Christology, the research literature actually has a lot to offer. Although the various authors on
discipleship represent a great variety, I have found them to have two things in common. First,
they all keep the person of Christ at the very center of their understanding of discipleship.
Second, they seem to take a starting point for their theologizing on discipleship in the
presence of Christ – in how and where they envision Christ to be present in the world:
For Dallas Willard the mind is where “the light of God first begins to move upon us
through the word of Christ”. He and others in the (neo) Evangelical tradition envision
discipleship as the “renovation of the heart” a “formation of character”.326 Gustavo Gutiérrez,
and much of liberation theology, believes “God’s face and action” to be “hidden in the poor”.
Discipleship for them is a “conversion to justice”; that is, “to know and experience the fact
that, contrary to the laws of physics, we can stand straight, according to the Gospel, only
when our center of gravity is outside ourselves”.327 David Augsburger and Thorwald Lorenzen
speak of a tripolar discipleship of transforming self, encountering God, and embracing others.
This is in keeping with a tripolar understanding of the presence of Christ in their Anabaptist
tradition: Christ in the believer, in the fellowship, and in the stranger.328 For the Lutheran
Dietrich Bonhoeffer, discipleship is found in the reception of costly grace, a vita passiva in
the “suffering” of “the call of Christ” and in the “undergoing” of baptism.329 Avery R. Dulles
sees discipleship as part of the Church’s ongoing mystical communion with Christ, in line
with an emphasis in the Roman Catholic tradition, where every sacrament is seen as a
transaction between the living Lord and the community of the disciples.330
326
Willard, Renovation of the heart, 95. See also: Willard, The great omission.
Gutiérrez, “Discipleship: Walking according to the spirit,” 301. James B. Nickoloff, Gustavo Gutiérrez:
Essential writings (London: SCM Press, 1996), 286. Gustavo Gutiérrez, The God of life (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis
Books, 1991), 90.
328
Augsburger, Dissident discipleship, 26, 136, 41. Thorwald Lorenzen, Resurrection and the discipleship:
interpretive models, biblical reflections, theological consequences (New York: Orbis Books, 1995); Lorenzen,
Resurrection, discipleship, justice.
329
Bonhoeffer, The cost of discipleship, 89, 197, 230–3.
330
Dulles, Models of the church, 198, 206–7; Dulles, “Community of disciples as a model of church”.
327
242
T A B L E 6: E X A M P L E S O F D IS C IP L E S H IP IN R E L A T IO N T O T H E P R E S E N C E O F C H R IS T IN
R E S E A R C H L IT E R A T U R E .
Figurant
Dallas
Willard
Gustavo
Gutiérrez
David
Augsburger
Dietrich
Bonhoeffer
Avery
Dulles
Tradition
(Neo) Evangelical
Liberation Theology
Anabaptist
Lutheran
Roman Catholic
In the heart and will
of the believer
In the identification
with the poor
Tripolar: believer,
fellowship, neighbor
In the call of Christ
(in baptism etc.)
In the sacramental
life of Church
↨
↨
↨
↨
↨
Spiritual formation /
renovation of the
heart
Political Spirituality
Tripolar: selfdevelopment,
brotherhood, justice
Suffering the call of
Christ
Mystical Communio
(with Christ)
The presence of
Christ
Discipleship
The list above is far from exhaustive, and is not even meant to be. I could practically
have expanded it with any written elaboration on discipleship, and spotted an immediate
relation between the author’s idea of the presence of Christ and the way he or she develops
discipleship from this starting point. The examples are meant as illustrations for a practice I
believe could help any user of discipleship vocabulary: the finding of the starting point, and
the developing of discipleship from this point. The starting point is the presence of Christ.
The development is the practical response. Such a practice could take the form of a
longstanding process of theoretical theologizing, or it could take the form of a swift and more
intuitive response in a particular real-life situation. In both cases, and everything in between,
discipleship emerges as a practice of the presence of Christ.
As we have seen, the understandings of the presence of Christ are many and diverse.
Here I will not point to one specific understanding as more suited than others. Instead I would
acknowledge the potential in an ecumenically open stance. Learning to identify and discern
Christ's presence is at least in part individually or organizationally conditioned – and a
lifelong endeavor.
A reconnecting of discipleship to the presence of Christ will not only reduce the
problems of conceptualization and power. As Christ is recognized in ever-new situations, our
imagination of what it is to follow him will expand too. Discipleship vocabulary will at its
best be used to describe and facilitate these kinds of processes in individuals, churches, and
even organizations.
7.3
Epilogue: The Great Commission revisited
In the final scene of the Gospel of Matthew, Jesus sends out his disciples to make new
disciples as they continue their walk. This New Testament passage has always shaped the
243
Church’s understanding of discipleship, and will continue to do so. This is not the place to
expound this text, but in light of this study I think some of the elements already in the text
will appear to us more clearly, in particular the four “alls” in this narrative.
First, Jesus never sent out the eleven with a prefabricated concept of discipleship;
rather the opposite. In a state of uncertainty and doubt they were to seek out all kinds of
people in all kinds of situations (v 19: πάντα τὰ ἔθνη). They were to depend on and hand over
all they had learned, not a thin concept (v 20: πάντα ὅσα ἐνετειλάµην ὑµῖν). It did not occur
to any of them that the assignment was uncritically to transmit situational independent
theological shorthand. For every new nation, culture, context, and individual, discipleship was
reconstructed. Jesus’ crucifixion and resurrection had changed everything. The Ascension and
Pentecost would alter the conditions even more. If there once had been an adopted and valid
concept of discipleship, it was now outdated. From now on, discipleship would have to be
made afresh in each new situation to the best of their ability and resources available. To
comply for the inherent inclination in discipleship to be conceptualized and the inherent
inclination in people to conceptualize it, would reduce its very potency. Discipleship would
be far better off as a critical and creative practice to respond to the call of Christ in any
situation.
Secondly, just before commissioning his disciples, Jesus clarified the authority
question once and for all. He declared that all the world’s authority (v 18: πᾶσα ἐξουσία ἐν
οὐρανῷ) was gathered in his, and not in their hands. Because of this any disciple of Christ
would in the centuries to come have an assurance against demands of loyalty and submission.
And anyone who in the future would seek to take part in Jesus’ commissioning of disciplemaking would keep this in mind and never step into other people’s boundaries. Following
Christ after this could never be understood as the following of another person. And making
disciples could never be promoted as getting others to follow you. The educational
methodology in Jesus’ discipleship of the twelve would over and over again inspire youth
ministries, but it could because of this never be a methodology to copy. That would be for the
minister, the leader, or the mentor to step into a role that already was taken.
Thirdly, just after having commissioned his disciples, Jesus gave the hint that would
form a core for all future discipleship: his promise of his presence for all days (v.20: πάσας
τὰς ἡµέρας). His promised presence in his word would forever be the guiding compass needle
in discipleship. In any new situation a disciple could end up, he or she would pray for, believe,
244
and receive this presence. This way Christ would continue to remain the center of Christian
discipleship.
In the dialectics of promised and experienced presence of Christ, we find Jesus’ call to
discipleship today. From this starting point discipleship develops through critical thinking,
courageous explorations, and compassionate attentiveness. Discipleship, then, is to recognize
Christ, and to the best of ones ability, to respond accordingly. Uses of discipleship vocabulary
that embrace and explore the inherent ambiguity in Christian discipleship are most likely to
accommodate such a development.
245
246
Appendix 1
Facsimile of information letter sent to one of the informants prior to interview:
Til$Ungdom$i$Oppdrag$$
v/$Andreas$Nordli$
Bergen$2/582012$
Informasjon*om*dybdeintervju…*
…i$forbindelse$med$studien:$”Signs'of'Discipleship'in'Norwegian'youthministry”.$
Mitt$navn$er$Knut$Tveitereid$og$er$innrullert$på$PhD8programmet$på$Misjonshøgskolen$i$
Stavanger$hvor$jeg$arbeider$med$en$avhandling$i$Praktisk$Teologi$om$sammenhengen$mellom$
strategiutvikling$i$norske$kristne$ungdomsorganisasjoner$og$forhandling$av$språk.'Mine$
veiledere$er$Bård$Mæland$(MHS)$og$Paul$Otto$Brunstad$(NLA).$
I$denne$studien$undersøker$jeg$teologi$på$et$strategisk$nivå$i$kristne$(ungdoms)organisasjoner.$
Jeg$analyserer$visjonsdokumenter$og$andre$offisielle$selvpresentasjoner$fra$en$rekke$
organisasjoner,$deriblant$deres.$Dessuten$gjør$jeg$utfyllende$forskningsintervjuer$med$topp8
lederne$for$noen$av$disse$organisasjonene.$Målet$med$intervjuet$er$å$få$en$større$forståelse$av$
bakgrunnen$for$organisasjonens$strategi.$
Om$du$sier$ja$til$å$delta…$
…$vil$du$bli$intervjuet$alene$
…$vil$intervjuet$ta$ca$18$1½$time$
…$vil$intervjuet$bli$tatt$opp$på$diktafon$
…$vil$vi$kunne$møtes$på$et$tidspunkt$og$et$sted$som$passer$deg.$
Det$jeg$særlig$er$interessert$i,$er$å$få$utdypet$teologiske,$strategiske$og$pedagogiske$preferanser$i$
deres$organisasjon$–$og$hvordan$dette$reflekterer$seg$i$språket$–$særlig$disippelspråket.$Dette$
mener$jeg$du$vil$være$rett$person$å$vite$noe$om.$
Som$representant$for$en$offisiell$organisasjon$vil$det$være$av$liten$hensikt$å$forsøke$å$
anonymisere$deg$i$forskningsrapporten.$Derfor$vil$jeg$legge$ekstra$vekt$på$at$du$får$lese$
gjennom$intervjuene$i$etterkant$slik$at$vi$kan$oppklare$eventuelle$misforståelser.$Om$du$skulle$
komme$til$å$angre$på$opplysninger$eller$uttalelser,$vil$du$kunne$redigere$disse$bort$i$ettertid.$
Intervjuet$vil$ikke$bli$publisert$i$sin$helhet,$men$enkelte$utdrag$kan$bli$gjengitt$i$avhandlingen.$
Prosjektet$er$meldt$til$Personvernombudet$for$forskning,$Norsk$samfunnsvitenskapelig$
datatjeneste$AS.$
Etter$prosjektslutt$vil$intervjuet$(både$lydfil$og$transkribering)$oppbevares$lokalt$på$en$ekstern$
harddisk.$Datamaterialet$vil$ikke$være$tilgjengelig$for$andre$enn$undertegnede.$$
Et$praktisk$mål$for$studien$er$blant$annet$å$bidra$til$strategiarbeidet$i$kristne$
ungdomsorganisasjoner.$Et$bidrag$fra$deg$og$din$organisasjon$vil$forhåpentlig$også$gi$dere$
nyttige$redskaper$for$fremtiden.$
Ta$gjerne$kontakt$om$du$har$spørsmål.$
$
Mvh$
Knut$Tveitereid$
PhD8stipendiat$NLA/MHS$
92606091$
[email protected]$
247
Appendix 2
Facsimile of an interview guide.
Intervjuguide,!
Norges'KFUK"KFUM%–!Adelheid'Firing'Hvambsal!
Offisielle'dokumenter:'Sjekk'opp!'
•
•
•
•
•
•
Hjemmesiden:'Selvpresentasjon'(http://kfuk;kfum.no/side80'22/1;12)'
Lover'
Måldokument'for'Norges'KFUK;KFUM'2011;2013'
Toårsmelding'2009;2010'
YMCA'
o Annual'report'2009;10'
o New'Way'strategic'plan'2010;2014'(Youth'Empowerment'etc)'
o Selpresentasjon'på'nettet'
YWCA'
o Annual'report'2009;10'(World)'
o Constitution'(se'sitat'under)'
!
Del!1:!Organisasjonens+selvforståelse+og+status+quo+
1. Det!virker!som!om!det!går!bra.!Hva!er!ståa!i!KFUK/M?!nå"situasjonen?!Hvor!opplever!du!
selv!å!være?!!
2. Du!som!leder!
- Hva!har!du!lyktes!med?!
- Hva!gjenstår?!Ambisjoner?!
3. Når!du!ser!norsk!ungdomskultur,!hva!tenker!du!da?!!
"!Muligheter?!
"!Utfordringer?!!
4. Hva!er!det!dere!bidrar!med!som!ikke!andre!organisasjoner!gjør?!
5. Kan!du!si!noe!om!hva!slags!litteratur/teorier/miljøer/personer!som!dere!lytter!til?!
!
Del!2:!Spørsmål+til+strategiplaner/dokumenter+(SITATER+UNDER)!
6. Visjon:!åpen!kristen!organisasjon!som!jobber!for!å!utvikle!kristne,!modige!og!kreative!
mennesker!
- Åpen!organisasjon?!
- Modige!msk?!
7. Litt!overraskende!å!se!hvor!Sentralstyrt!organisasjon:!Tenker!på!Opptak!av!nye!
foreninger,!godkjennelse,!bekjennelse!osv…!
8. Har!inntrykk!at!dere!har!blitt!mer!tydelig!kristne!de!siste!årene…!
9. Bekjennelsesplikt!for!voksenledere.!Hvorfor!er!det!viktig?!
10. Suksesskriterier/grunner!til!suksess!iflg.!Årsrapporten!
i. Truffet!Tweens!
ii. Systemene+for+oppfølging+–+Fortell…+
iii. Kompetanseheving+i+alle+ledd+av+tillitsvalgte+og+ansatte.+Fortell…+
248
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
iv. Storsamling!
Ungt!eierskap,!deltagelse,!epowerment:!rolle!spiller!voksenlederen!i!det?!
Dere!har!mange!lederkurs:!Ungdomsarbeid!som!lederutvikling.!Hva!tenker!du!om!det?!
To!tiltak:!I1bevegelse!og!I1balanse.!Hva!mener!dere!med!bevegelse?!
Som!organisasjonspsykolog…!Sunnhet…Hva!er!det?!
Økumenisk!vs.!DnK!
Del!3:!Disippelspråk+og+disippelteologi!
16. Har!du!selv,!i!din!historie,!vært!i!kontakt!med!miljøer!som!snakket!mye!om!disippelskap?!
Hva!slags!inntrykk!sitter!du!igjen!med?!
17. Noe!av!bakgrunnen!for!denne!undersøkelsen!er!at!stadig!fler!aktører!i!kristent!
ungdomsarbeid!(organisasjoner,!bibelskoler,!masterstudenter)!revitaliserer!
disippelspråk!og!ulike!disippelkonsepter.!Hva!tenker!du!om!en!slik!utvikling?!Hva!kan!
ligge!bak?!
18. Pariserbasisen:!Hva!tenker!du!om!bruken!av!ordet!disippel!der?!
19. Det!var!en!som!sa:!”Disippel!er!ladet!språk”.!!
Hvilke!assosiasjoner!får!du!med!disippel!og!disippelskap?!!
Hva!gjør!den!typen!språk!med!oss?!
20. Hva!slags!råd!vil!du!gi!til!sammenhenger!som!er!opptatt!av!disippelskap?!!
!
Sitater!
Vår!visjon:!Vi'får'utrolige'ting'til'å'skje'ved'å'være'en'åpen'kristen'organisasjon'som'jobber'for'å'utvikle'kristne,'
modige'og'kreative'mennesker.'
'
!
YWCA!
Basis:!3.'The'World'YWCA'is'founded'on'and'inspired'by'the'Christian'faith.'
Purpose:!4.'The'purpose'of'the'World'YWCA'is'to'develop'the'leadership'and'collective'power'of'women'and'
girls'around'the'world'to'achieve'justice,'peace,'health,'human'dignity,'freedom'and'a'sustainable'environment'
for'all'people.'
'
YMCA!
Paris!Basis:!“The'Young'Men's'Christian'Associations'seek'to'unite'those'young'men'who,'regarding'Jesus'
Christ'as'their'God'and'Saviour,'according'to'the'Holy'Scriptures,'desire'to'be'his'disciples'in'their'faith'and'in'
their'life,'and'to'associate'their'efforts'for'the'extension'of'his'Kingdom'amongst'young'men”.''
!
Fra$lovene$
III.'Norges'KFUK;KFUM'arbeider'ut'fra'"Basis'for'KFUM'("Pariserbasis"):''
KFUM!har!til!formål!å!forene!de!unge!menn!som!overensstemmende!med!den!!
Hellige!skrift!tror!på!Kristus!som!sin!Gud!og!Frelser,!og!som!derfor!vil!være!hans!!
disipler!i!tro!og!liv!og!vil!strebe!etter!å!utbre!sin!Mesters!rike!blant!de!unge.''
!
249
Appendix 3
Facsimile: letter from NSD: preliminary approval according to standard privacy protection:
250
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Afdal, Geir. Researching religious education as social practice. Münster: Waxmann, 2010.
Andrews, Alan. The kingdom life: A practical theology of discipleship and spiritual formation, edited
by Alan Andrews. Colorado Springs, CO: Navpress, 2010.
Anthony, Michael J. Introducing Christian education: Foundations for the twenty-first century. Grand
Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2001.
Astley, Jeff. Ordinary theology: Looking, listening and learning in theology, Explorations in practical,
pastoral and empirical theology. Aldershot: Ashgate, 2002.
Augsburger, David. Dissident discipleship: A spirituality of self-surrender, love of God, and love of
neighbor. Grand Rapids, MI: Brazos Press, 2006.
Betz, Hans Dieter. Nachfolge und Nachahmung Jesu Christi im Neuen Testament, Beiträge zur
historischen Theologie. Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1967.
Biesta, Gert J. J. Læring retur: Demokratisk dannelse for en menneskelig fremtid. Translated by Marie
Schneekloth. Vol. 100, Beyond learning education for a human future. Copenhagen: Unge
Pædagoger, 2009.
Bonhoeffer, Dietrich. Nachfolge. Geneva: Die Kriegsgefangenenhilfe des Weltbundes der Christlichen
Vereine Junger Männer, 1937.
———. Lydighetens vei, Nachfolge. Oslo: Land og Kirke, 1956.
———. The cost of discipleship. London: SCM, 1959.
———. Etterfølgelse. Translated by Knut Grønvik. Oslo: Luther, 2010.
Bosch, David J. Transforming mission: Paradigm shifts in theology of mission. Vol. 16, American
Society of Missiology series. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books., 1991.
Boys, Mary C. Education for citizenship and discipleship. New York: The Pilgrim Press, 1989.
Breen, Mike, and Steve Cockram. Å bygge en disippelkultur. Skjetten: Hermon, 2010.
Brottveit, Ånund, and Sunniva Elisabeth Holberg. Tilstandsrapport for Den norske kirke 2014. Vol.
2/2014, Notat (Kirkeforskning, Stiftelsen: trykt utg.). Oslo: KIFO Stiftelsen Kirkeforskning,
2014.
Brown, David. Discipleship and imagination: Christian tradition and truth. Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 2000.
Browning, Don S. A fundamental practical theology: Descriptive and strategic proposals.
Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1991.
Brunstad, Paul Otto. "Ungdomsarbeid blant menneskeetere." In Ungdom i rørsle 2. Faglege perspektiv
og utfordringar, edited by Jan Ove Ulstein. Oslo: Tapir, 2004.
Bryman, Alan. Social research methods. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008.
Bultmann, Rudolf Karl. Jesus and the word. London: Collins, 1958.
251
Burks, Ron, and Vicki Burks. Damaged disciples: Casualties of authoritarian churches and the
shepherding movement. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Pub. House, 1992.
Byrskog, Samuel. Jesus the only teacher: didactic authority and transmission in ancient Israel,
ancient Judaism and the Matthean community. Vol. 24, Coniectanea Biblica, New Testament
series. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell International, 1994.
Cahalan, Kathleen A., and James R. Nieman. "Mapping the field of practical theology." In For life
abundant: practical theology, theological education, and Christian ministry, edited by
Dorothy C. Bass and Craig Dykstra. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2008.
Camp, Bruce K. "A theological examination of the two-structure theory." Missiology: An
International Review 23, no. 2 (1995): 197–209.
Camp, Lee C. Mere discipleship: Radical Christianity in a rebellious world. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids,
MI: Brazos, 2008.
Canales, Arthur D. "Models for adolescent ministry: Exploring eight ecumenical examples." Religious
Education 101 no. 2 (2006): 29.
Changemaker. "Changemaker Årsmelding 2011-2012." 2011.
———. "Changemakers strategi 2010-2014 / Utvidet strategidokument for Changemaker 2010-2014."
2011.
———. "Handlingsplan 2011-2012." 2011.
———. "Politisk plattform 2011-2012." 2011.
———. "Vedtekter for Changemaker." 2011.
———. "Self presentation." http://www.changemaker.no.
Church of England. Youth a part: Young people and the church. London: National Society/Church
House Publishing, 1996.
Clark, Chap, and Kara Eckmann Powell. Deep ministry in a shallow world: Not-so-secret findings
about youth ministry. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2006.
Copan, Victor A. "Μαθητής and Μιµηθής: Exploring an entangled relationship." Bulletin for Biblical
Research 17, no. 2 (2007): 11.
Cray, Graham. Postmodern culture and youth discipleship: Commitment or looking cool? Cambridge:
Grove Books, 2003.
Cray, Graham, Ian J. Mobsby, and Aaron Kennedy. New monasticism as fresh expression of Church.
Norwich: Canterbury Press, 2010.
Danermark, Berth, Mats Ekström, Liselotte Jakobsen, and Jan Ch. Karlsson. Explaining society:
critical realism in the social sciences. London: Routledge, 2002.
Dean, Kenda Creasy. Practicing passion: Youth and the quest for a passionate church. Grand Rapids,
MI: Eerdmans, 2004.
252
Dean, Kenda Creasy, and Ron Foster. The godbearing life: The art of soul tending for youth ministry.
Nashville, TN: Upper Room Books, 1998.
DeForge, Ryan, and Jay Shaw. "Back- and fore-grounding ontology: Exploring the linkages between
critical realism, pragmatism, and methodologies in health & rehabilitation sciences." Nursing
Inquiry 19, no. 1 (2012): 13.
Den katolske kirke. "Lumen Gentium." http://www.katolsk.no/dokumenter/dokumenter-fravatikanet/paul6/lg.
Dewey, John. "Chapter 12: What pragmatism means by practical." In Essays in experimental logic.
Chicago: University of Chicago, 1916.
Donaldson, Lex. "The normal science of structural contingency theory." In Studying organization:
Theory & method, edited by Stewart R. Clegg and Cynthia Hardy. London: Sage, 1999.
Dulles, Avery. Models of the church. New York: Image Books / Doubleday, 2002.
Dulles, Avery Robert. "Community of disciples as a model of church." Philosophy & Theology 1, no.
2 (1986): 22.
Dunn, James D. G. Unity and diversity in the New Testament: An inquiry into the character of earliest
Christianity. London: SCM Press, 1990.
Eco, Umberto, and Thomas A. Sebeok. The sign of three: Dupin, Holmes, Peirce. Bloomington, IN:
Indiana University Press, 1983.
Engedal, Leif Gunnar. "Jakten på sjelesorgens identitet: Teologiske og kulturanalytiske peilinger i en
brytningstid." Dansk Tidsskrift for Teologi og Kirke 35, no. 3 (2008): 23.
———. "Searching for spiritual roots and discipleship in a postmodern consumer culture: The
Norwegian Crossroad movement." Spiritus: A Journal of Christian Spirituality 11, no. 1
(2011): 16.
Engeström, Yrjo. “Expansive learning at work: Toward an activity theoretical reconceptualization”
Journal of Education and Work 14, no. 1 (2001): 133-156.
Feifel, Erich. Der pädagogische Anspruch der Nachfolge Christi: Ein Beitrag zur Neuorientierung in
der katholischen Religionspädagogik: Festgabe für Franz Xaver Arnold zum 70. Geburtstag.
Donauwörth: Auer, 1968.
Fiorenza, Elisabeth Schüssler. Discipleship of equals: A critical feminist ekklesia-logy of liberation.
London: Crossroad, 1993.
Foster, Richard J., Tone Benestad, and Øivind Benestad. Veier til glede: Innføring i de klassiske
åndelige disipliner. Oslo: Luther, 2001.
Frost, Michael and Alan Hirsch, The shaping of things to come: Innovation and mission for the 21st
century church. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2003.
Gadamer, Hans-Georg. Truth and method. 2nd rev. ed. Translation revised by Joel Weinsheimer and
Donald G. Marshall. ed, Wahrheit und Methode. London: Continuum, 2004.
253
Gerhardsson, Birger. Memory and manuscript: Oral tradition and written transmission in rabbinic
Judaism and early Christianity. Vol. 22, Acta Seminarii neotestamentici Upsaliensis. Uppsala:
Gleerup, 1961.
Gibbs, Eddie, and Ryan K. Bolger. Emerging churches: Creating Christian community in postmodern
cultures. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2005.
Giddens, Anthony. Social theory and modern sociology. Oxford: Polity Press, 1987.
Gittins, Anthony J. A presence that disturbs: A call to radical discipleship. Liguori, MO:
Liguori/Triumph, 2002.
Grønvik, Knut. Snekkersønnen: Edin Løvås - en biografi. Oslo: Luther, 1995.
———. "Korsveis linje?" In Gudsrikets gåte: Stemmer fra korsveibevegelsen: En artikkelsamling
utgitt til Korsvei 2005, edited by Ellen Merete Wilkens Finnseth, Knut Grønvik, Inge Westly
and Per Arne Gjerdi: Oslo: Stiftelsen korsvei, 2005.
"Guidelines for research ethics in the social sciences, law and the humanities." Oslo: The National
Committee for Research Ethics in the Social Sciences and the Humanities, 2006.
Gutiérrez, Gustavo. The God of life. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 1991.
———. "Discipleship: Walking according to the spirit." In Essential Writings, edited by James B.
Nickoloff. London: SCM Press, 1996.
Hanson, Paul D. The people called: The growth of community in the Bible. San Francisco: Harper &
Row, 1986.
Harder, Leland. "The concept of discipleship in Christian education." Religious Education: The
Official Journal of the Religious Education Association 58, no. 5 (1963).
Hartgrove-Wilson, Jonathan. New monasticism: What it has to say to today's church. Grand Rapids,
MI: Brazos, 2008.
Hatch, Mary Jo, and Majken Schultz. "Relations between organizational culture, identity and image."
European Journal of Marketing 31, no. 5 (1997): 10.
Heelas, Paul, and Linda Woodhead. Religion in modern times: An interpretive anthology. Oxford:
Blackwell, 2000.
———. The spiritual revolution: Why religion is giving way to spirituality. Malden, MA: Blackwell
Publ., 2005.
Hengel, Martin, and John Riches. The charismatic leader and his followers. Edinburgh: Clark, 1981.
Henriksen, Jan-Olav. "Normative dimensions in empirical reserach on religion, values and society." In
Difficult normativity: Normative dimensions in research on religion and theology, edited by
Jan-Olav Henriksen. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 2011.
Hiebert, Paul G. Anthropological reflections on missiological issues. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books,
1994.
Holm, Vegard. På sporet av noe ekte. Oslo: Luther, 2012.
254
Holmås, Geir-Otto. "Bønn og disippelskap i Lukas-Acta. Til belysning av bønnens betydning for
kristen formatio." Halvårsskrift for praktisk teologi, Oslo: Luther forlag. 1 (2009).
Horsley, Richard A. Sociology and the Jesus movement. New York: Crossroad, 1989.
Houston, James M. The disciple: Following the true mentor. Colorado Springs, CO: David C. Cook,
2007.
Huang, Yan. Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007.
Hull, Bill. The complete book of discipleship: On being and making followers of Christ. Colorado
Springs, CO: Navpress, 2006.
Hütter, Reinhard. Suffering divine things: Theology as church practice. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans,
2000.
John Paul II. "Redemptor hominis, encyclical letter, 4 March 1979." (1979),
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jpii_enc_04031979_redemptor-hominis_en.html.
James, William. Pragmatism: A new name for some old ways of thinking: Popular lectures on
philosophy. New York: Longmans, Green and Co., 1907.
———. Some problems of philosophy: A beginning of an introduction to philosophy. New York:
Longmans, Green, 1911.
Johnson, Nicole L. Practicing discipleship: Lived theologies of nonviolence in conversation with the
doctrine of the United Methodist Church. Eugene, OR: Pickwick Publications, 2009.
Jones, Tony. The Church is flat. The relational ecclesiology of the Emerging church movement.
Minneapolis: The JoPa Group, 2011.
Kauffman, Ivan J. Follow me: A History of Christian Intentionality. Eugene, OR: Cascade Books,
2009.
Kaufman, Tone S. "A new old spirituality for youth ministry: Christian discipleship and practice in the
Norwegian CrossRoad Movement." Journal of Youth and Theology Vol. 11, no. 1-2 (2012):
40-58.
Kirkerådet. Håndbok til Plan for konfirmasjonstiden i Den norske kirke. Oslo: Kirkerådet, 1998.
———. Plan for konfirmasjonstiden i Den norske kirke. Oslo: Kirkerådet, 1998.
Kivinen, Osmo, and Tero Piiroinen. "The relevance of ontological commitments in social sciences:
Realist and pragmatist viewpoints." Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour 34, no. 3
(2004): 231–48.
Knudsen, Harald, Bjørn-Tore Flåten, Joyce Falkenberg, Jonny Holbek, Åge Johnsen, and Inger G.
Stensaker. Strategisk ledelse. Oslo: Cappelen Damm akademisk, 2015.
Korsvei. Veivisere. En vandring med Korsveis fire veivisere. Oslo: Genesis, 2003.
———. "Vedtekter for Stiftelsen Korsvei." 2007.
———. "Disipler på veien. Referat og notater fra Ten-korsvei." 2009-2012.
255
———. "Årsmelding for 2011. Stiftelsen korsvei.", 2011.
———. "Veigrep. En livsregel for Kristusdisipler. Inspirert av Korsveis fire veivisere." 2011, 2nd ed.
———. "Self presentation."
KRIK. "Self presentation." http://krik.no/nasjonalt/side.php?id=43.
———. "Spilleregler for KRIK-ledere." 2004.
———. "Lover for Kristen idrettskontakt." 2009.
———. "Strategisk plan for KRIK 2010-2014." 2010.
———. "Årsmelding 2009-2010." 2010.
Kulturinstruks for KRIKs arrangementer.
Kristensen, Vidar. Lagsfolk: Norges kristelige student- og skoleungdomslag 1924-1994. Oslo: Credo,
1993.
Kvalbein, Hans. "Da disiplene ble kristne (Apgj 11,26)." In Ad acta: Studier til Apostlenes gjerninger
og urkristendommens historie. Tilegnet professor Edvin Larsson på 70-årsdagen, edited by
Reidar Hvalvik and Hans Kvalbein. Oslo: Verbum, 1994.
———. "I Jesu skole: Disippelskap som utgangspunkt for kirkeforskningen." In Slik blir kirken til:
Kirke i forandring i Det nye testamente, S. 53-77. Trondheim: Det teologiske
menighetsfakultet, 2003.
Laget. "Lover for Norges kristelige student- og skoleungdomslag." 2006.
———. "Fra Organisasjon til bevegelse. Lagets strategiplan 2012-2016." 2012.
———. "Lagets Toårsmelding 2010-2011." 2012.
———. "Utkast til handlingsplan 01.01.12-30.06.2013." 2012.
———. "Self presentation." http://www.nkss.no.
Lai, Whalen. "Master and pupil: Buddhist perspectives." In Encyclopedia of monasticism, edited by
William M. Johnston, 2 vols. (XXXIV, 1556 s.). Chicago: Fitzroy Dearborn, 2000.
Larsson, Edvin. Christus als Vorbild: eine Untersuchung zu den paulinischen Tauf- und Eikontexten.
Vol. 23, Acta Seminarii neotestamentici Upsaliensis. Uppsala: Gleerup, 1962.
Lave, Jean, and Etienne Wenger. Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1991.
Leech, Geoffrey N. Principles of pragmatics. New York: Longman, 1983.
Leer-Salvesen, Paul. "Normative evaluations in theologial ethics." In Difficult normativity: Normative
dimensions in research on religion and theology, edited by Jan-Olav Henriksen. Frankfurt am
Main: Peter Lang, 2011.
Lewis, David. Management of non-governmental development organizations. 2nd ed. New York:
Routledge, 2007.
Lewis-Beck, Michael S., Alan Bryman, and Tim Futing Liao. The Sage encyclopedia of social science
research methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2004.
256
Lincoln, Yvonna S., and Egon G. Guba. Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage, 1985.
Lings, George. "Why modality and sodality thinking is vital to understand future church." 2012.
(Unpublished manuscript available at:
http://www.churcharmy.org.uk/Groups/244972/Church_Army/Church_Army/Our_work/Rese
arch/Talks_and_presentations/Talks_and_presentations.aspx)
Lipman-Blumen, Jean, Ronald E. Riggio, and Ira Chaleff. The art of followership: How great
followers create great leaders and organizations. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 2008.
Longenecker, Richard N. Patterns of discipleship in the New Testament, McMaster New Testament
studies. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdman, 1996.
Lorenzen, Thorwald. Resurrection and the discipleship: interpretive models, biblical reflections,
theological consequences. New York: Orbis Books, 1995.
———. Resurrection, discipleship, justice. Affirming the resurrection of Jesus today. Macon, GA:
Smyth & Helwys, 2003.
Lundby, Knut. Troskollektivet: En studie i folkekirkens oppløsning i Norge. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget,
1987.
Løvås, Edin. Kanskje dette er vegen? Oslo: Ansgar, 1950.
———. Åndelige øvelser for en Kristus-disippel. Oslo: Land og kirke, 1952.
———. Disipler. Garmo: Sandom retreatsenter, 1976.
———. Smak og se: 52 åndelige øvelser for en kristusdisippel. Vinterbro: Atheneum, 1995.
———. Vår tid trenger kristusdisipler. Garmo: Sandomstiftelsen, 1995.
———. Kristusbudskapet i 2000+. Oslo: Luther, 1999.
Mahan, Brian J., Michael Warren, and David F. White. Awakening youth discipleship. Christian
resistance in a consumer culture. Eugene, OR: Cascade Books, 2008.
McGrath, Alister E. Mere theology: Christian faith and the discipleship of the mind. London: SPCK,
2010.
Milchner, Hans Jürgen. Nachfolge Jesu und Imitatio Christi: die theologische Entfaltung der
Nachfolgethematik seit den Anfängen der Christenheit bis hin in die Zeit der devotio moderna:
Unter besonderer Berücksichtigung religionspädagogischer Ansätze. Berlin: LIT Verlag,
2004.
Mintzberg, Henry. "Patterns in strategy formation." Management Science 24, no. 9 (1978): 934-48.
———. The structuring of organizations: A synthesis of the research, The Theory of management
policy series. Englewood Cliffs, N.J: Prentice-Hall, 1979.
Mintzberg, Henry, and James A. Waters. "Of strategies, deliberate and emergent." Strategic
management journal 6, no. 3 (1985): 257-72.
Misjonsforbundet Ung. Levende tro: En pedagogisk trosopplæringsplan for aldersgruppen 0 - 20 år
til bruk i hjem og menighet. Oslo: MisjonsforbundetUNG, 2010.
257
———. "Self presentation." http://misjonsforbundet.no/ung.
———. Årboka 2011: Landsmøte, 19.- 20. november i Skien misjonskirke. Oslo:
MisjonsforbundetUNG, 2012.
Misjonsforbundet Ung, and Håvard Haugland. "Disippelpuls." Oslo, 2009.
Moltmann, Jürgen. Theology of hope: On the ground and the implications of a Christian eschatology.
London: SCM Press, 1967.
———. The politics of discipleship and discipleship in politics: Jürgen Moltmann lectures in dialogue
with Mennonite scholars, edited by Willard M. Swartley. Eugene, OR: Cascade Books, 2006.
Montefiore, C. G. Rabbinic literature and Gospel teachings. New York: KTAV, 1970.
Moore, S. David. The shepherding movement: Controversy and charismatic ecclesiology. London:
T&T Clark Int., 2003.
Morris, Charles W. Foundations of the theory of signs, edited by Otto Neurath, Niels Bohr, John
Dewey, Bertrand Russell, Rudolf Carnap and Charles Morris. Vol. 1, Foundations of the unity
of science. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1938.
———. Signs, language and behavior. New York: Prentice-Hall, 1946.
Nellhaus, Tobin. "Signs, social ontology, and critical realism." Journal for the Theory of Social
Behaviour 28, no. 1 (1998).
Nickoloff, James B. Gustavo Gutiérrez: Essential writings. London: SCM Press, 1996.
Nielsen, Klaus, and Steinar Kvale. Mesterlære: Læring som sosial praksis. Translated by Gunnar
Bureid. Oslo: Ad Notam Gyldendal, 1999.
Norges KFUK-KFUM. "KFUK-KFUM toårsmelding 2009-2010." 2011.
———. "Lover for Norges KFUK-KFUM." 2011.
———. "Måldokument for Norges KFUK-KFUM 2011-2013." 2011.
———. "Sefpresentation." http://www.YMCA.int
———. "Self presentation." http://www.kfuk-kfum.no/side80.
Norges KFUK-KFUM Speidere. "Self presentation." http://www.kmspeider.no/.
Norges unge katolikker. "NUKs Formålsparagraf." 2011.
———. "Årsrapport 2010-2011." 2011.
———. "Håndbok." 2012.
———. "Self presentation." http://nuk.no/.
———. "Vedtekter for Norges unge katolikker." 2012.
———. "Årsrapport 2011-2012." 2012.
Norheim, Bård Eirik Hallesby. Practicing baptism: Christian practices and the presence of Christ.
Eugene, OR: Pickwick Publications, 2014.
Närvänen, Anna-Liisa, and Elisabet Näsman. "Childhood as generation or life phase?" Young: Nordic
journal of youth research 12, no. 1 (2004): 71–91.
258
Nöth, Winfried. Handbook of semiotics. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 1990.
Ogden, Greg. Transforming discipleship: Making disciples a few at a time. Downers Grove, IL: IVP
Books, 2003.
———. Discipleship essentials: A guide to building your life in Christ. Downers Grove, IL: IVP
Connect, 2007.
Osmer, Richard Robert. Practical theology: An introduction. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2008.
Pedemonte, Bettina, and David Reid. "The role of abduction in proving processes." Educational
Studies in Mathematics 76, no. 3 (2011): 23.
Perkins, Hal. Walk with me: A biblical journey in making christlike disciples. Kansas City, KA: Bacon
Hill, 2008.
Peters, Greg. Reforming the monastery: Protestant theologies of the religious life, New Monastic
Library: Resources for Radical Discipleship. Eugene, OR: Cascade Books, 2013.
Peterson, Eugene H. A long obedience in the same direction: Discipleship in an instant society.
Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1980.
Popper, Karl R. The logic of scientific discovery. London: Routledge, 1992.
Porter, Stanley E., and Jason C. Robinson. Hermeneutics: An introduction to interpretive theory.
Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2011.
Rahner, Karl. Spiritual writings, edited by Philip Endean. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 2004.
Rengstorf, Karl Heinrich. "µαθητης." In Theological dictionary of the New Testament: Vol. 4: L–N,
edited by Gerhard Kittel and Geoffrey W. Bromiley. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1967.
Riesner, Rainer. Jesus als Lehrer: Eine Untersuchung zum Ursprung der Evangelienüberlieferung.
Tübingen: Mohr, 1988.
Roebben, Bert. "International developments in youth ministry research: A comparative review."
Religious Education: The Official Journal of the Religious Education Association 107, no. 2
March-April (2012): 15.
Root, Andrew. Christopraxis: A practical theology of the cross. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2014.
Root, Andrew, and Kenda Creasy Dean. The theological turn in youth ministry. Downers Grove, IL:
IVP Books, 2011.
Rymarz, Richard M. "Principles of the new evangelization: Analysis and directions." Australian
Catholic University, 2010. (PhD thesis, electronically available at
http://dlibrary.acu.edu.au/digitaltheses/public/adt-acuvp293.29032011/02whole.pdf)
Salamon, Lester M., and Helmut K. Anheier. "In search of the non-profit sector. The question of
definitions." Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations 3, no.
2 (1992): 26.
Scandrette, Mark. Soul graffiti: Making a life in the way of Jesus. San Fransisco: Jossey-Bass, 2007.
259
———. Practicing the way of Jesus: Life together in the kingdom of God. Downers Grove, IL: IVP
Books, 2011.
Scandrette, Mark, and Stian Kilde Aarebrot. Jesusveien: Eksperimenter underveis. Oslo: Luther, 2011.
Scharen, Christian Batalden. Explorations in ecclesiology and ethnography, Studies in ecclesiology
and ethnography. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans, 2012.
Schleiermacher, Friedrich Daniel Ernst, and Heinrich Scholz. Schleiermachers kurze Darstellung des
theologischen Studiums. Leipzig: Deichert'sche Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1910.
Schmidt, Ulla. "Empirical research and theological normativity." In Difficult normativity: Normative
dimensions in research on religion and theology, edited by Jan-Olav Henriksen. Frankfurt am
Main: Peter Lang, 2011.
Schreiter, Robert J. Constructing local theologies. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 1985.
Schuff, Hildegunn Marie Tønnessen. Misjonsforbundet Ungs historie 1912-2012. Oslo:
Misjonsforbundet Ung, 2011.
Schulz, Anselm. Nachfolgen und Nachahmen: Studien über das Verhältnis der neutestamentlichen
Jüngerschaft zur urchristlichen Vorbildethik. Munich: Kösel, 1962.
Segovia, Fernando F. Discipleship in the New Testament. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1985.
Senter III., Mark H., Wesley Black, Chap Clark, and Malan Nel. Four views of youth ministry and the
church: Inclusive congregational, preparatory, missional, strategic. Grand Rapids, MI: Youth
Specialties, 2001.
Shirley, Chris. "It takes a church to make a disciple: An integrative model of discipleship for the local
church." Southwestern Journal of Theology 50, no. 2 (2008): 19.
Sider, Ronald J. Rich Christians in an age of hunger: A Biblical study. Downers Grove, IL:
Intervarsity Press, 1977.
Skagen, Kaare. I veiledningens landskap: Innføring i veiledning og rådgivning. Kristiansand:
Høyskoleforlaget, 2004.
Slater, Nelle G. Tensions between citizenship and discipleship. New York: The Pilgrim Press, 1989.
Stanley, Paul D., and J. Robert Clinton. Connecting: The mentoring relationships you need to succeed
in life. Colorado Springs, CO: Navpress 1992
Stott, John. The radical disciple: Some neglected aspects of our calling. Downers Grove, IL: IVP
Books, 2010.
Strommen, Merton P., and Richard A. Hardel. Passing on the faith: A radical new model for youth
and family ministry. Winona, MN: Saint Mary's Press, 2000.
Substans. "Newsletters 2012." http://substansielt.no/info/historikk/.
———. "Self presentation." http://substansielt.no.
Tanner, Kathryn. Theories of culture: A new agenda for theology, Guides to theological inquiry.
Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1997
260
Tickle, Phyllis. The great emergence: How Christianity is changing and why. Grand Rapids, MI:
Baker Books, 2008.
Toulmin, Stephen. The uses of argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003.
Troeltsch, Ernst. The social teaching of the Christian churches. Louisville, Ky.: Westminster/John
Knox Press, 1931.
Trosopplæringen. "Vi deler. Plan for trosopplæring i Den norske kirke. Revidert utkast 2009." Oslo:
Kirkerådet, 2009.
———. Gud gir - vi deler: plan for trosopplæring i Den norske kirke. Oslo: Den norske kirke,
Kirkerådet, 2010.
———. "Reform av Trosopplæringen i Den norske kirke. Statusrapport august 2011." 2011.
———. "Bakgrunn." http://www.kirken.no/?event=doLink&famID=9345.
———. "Self presentation: Religious education in a new era."
http://www.kirken.no/?event=doLink&famID=11298.
Tveitereid, Knut. En helt overkommelig disippel. Oslo: Det norske bibelselskap, 2005.
———. "I interaktivitetens navn? Forkynnelse i grensesnittet mellom evangeliet, kirken og kulturen."
In Grensesprengende: om forkynnelse for ungdom 15-18 år, edited by Bård Mæland and Hans
Austnaberg, 169–86. Trondheim: Tapir akademisk forl., 2009.
Ungdom i Oppdrag. "DTS-magasinet 2012. Ungdom i Oppdrags disippeltreningsskoler." 2012.
———. "Covenants YWAM." http://ywam.org/en/About-YWAM/Who-we-are/The-Jubilee-Covenant,
http://ywam.org/en/About-YWAM/Who-we-are/The-Manila-Covenant,
http://ywam.org/en/About-YWAM/Who-we-are/The-Lausanne-Covenant,
http://ywam.org/en/About-YWAM/Who-we-are/The-Christian-Magna-Carta,
http://ywam.org/en/About-YWAM/Who-we-are/YWAM's-Commitment-to-Reach-AllPeoples, http://www.ywamfm.com/about-us/our-beliefs/the-red-sea-covenant.aspx.
———. "Om Ungdom i Oppdrag, http://www.ywam.no." http://www.ywam.no/om-uio/,
http://www.ungdomioppdrag.no.
———. "Self presentation." http://www.worldYWCA.org.
Utnem, Erling. Visst skal jorden bli ny! Det bibelske framtidshåp. Oslo: Luther, 1987.
Verschueren, Jef. Understanding pragmatics. London: Arnold, 1999.
Viau, Marcel. Practical theology: A new approach. Leiden: Brill, 1999.
Volf, Miroslav. A public faith: How followers of Christ should serve the common good. Grand Rapids,
MI: Brazos Press, 2011.
Wallis, Jim. The call to conversion: Recovering the gospel for these times. San Francisco: Harper &
Row, 1981.
Ward, Pete. Youthwork and the mission of God. Frameworks for relational outreach. London: SPCK,
1997.
261
———. Perspectives on ecclesiology and ethnography, Studies in ecclesiology and ethnography.
Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2012.
Weber, Max, and Fredrik Engelstad. Verdi og handling. Oslo: Pax, 1999.
Wilkins, Michael J. The concept of disciple in Matthew's gospel: as reflected in the use of the term
µαθητης. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1988.
———. Following the master: A biblical theology of discipleship. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan,
1992.
Willard, Dallas. Renovation of the heart: Putting on the character of Christ. Colorado Springs, CO:
NavPress, 2002.
———. The great omission. Reclaiming Jesus' essential teaching on discipleship. New York:
HarperOne, 2006.
Winter, Ralph D. "The two structures of God's redemptive mission." Missiology: An International
Review 2, no. 1 (1974): 121–39.
Winter, Ralph D., and R. Pierce Beaver. The warp and the woof: organizing for mission. South
Pasadena, CA: William Carey Library, 1970.
Wivestad, Stein M. "Conditions for ‘upbuilding’: A reply to Nigel Tubbs’ reading of Kierkegaard."
Journal of Philosophy of Education 45, no. 4 (2011): 13.
Yeakley jr., Flavil R., Howard W. Norton, Don E. Vinzant, and Gene Vinzant. The discipling dilemma.
Nashville, TN: Gospel Advocate Co., 1988.
Yoder, John Howard. "The disciple of Christ and the way of Jesus." In The politics of Jesus: Vicit
Agnus noster, 23. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1994.
———. The politics of Jesus: Vicit agnus noster. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1994.
———. Discipleship as political responsibility. Harrisonburg, VA: Herald Press, 2003.
Østergaard, Søren and Simon Hall, “Focusing youth ministry through innovation,” in Starting right:
Thinking theologically about youth ministry, edited by Kenda Creasy Dean, Chap Clark, and
David Rahn. Grand Rapids, MI: Youth Specialties/Zondervan Publishing House, 2001.
262