Posted: January 3, 2008 Filed under: Uncategorized
“…and the system or curriculum or training for the pulse groups? I think that I agree with surrounding yourself with a small group of people, but how much do you, “mandate,” to happen without stealing the life away from them? Do you just train the leaders well so that it’s natural for them, or do you have a curriculum that each group should go through?” –Mike
Try this on for size…
The point of discipleship is probably not discipleship. If you have a curriculum for “discipleship”, then at the end of the curriculum, you expect to have Disciples- but if they don’t act like Disciples, are they still disciples? Curriculum still sets you up for a pass/fail scenario that, in this case, just isn’t healthy.
The structure of said pulse group is not in the direction of discipleship, but consists of disciples doing things that disciples do (taking care of people, community involvement, etc.). You would assign a new disciple to a local group of already-disciples, and just let them get into the flow of what’s already happening in that group- i wouldn’t attend a group that was focused on me and my growth b/c that’s wierd and too Newhart for my liking.
So, the ‘curriculum’ may be helping the leaders organise and understand their role on the frontlines of the community as a local group. I’m leaning toward a “being and doing”, and leaning away from the “learning about it”…and it has to be determined locally and individually- but how useful is that, really?