EMQ » April–June 2021 » Volume 57 Issue 2
By Aubry Smith
The Discovery Bible Study (DBS) is a popular missiological strategy used within the context of the Disciple-Making Movement (DMM) framework as described by David and Paul Watson in Contagious Disciple Making.[1] DBS groups are the primary model for discipleship and replication within the DMM model, and they form the foundation for emerging churches. I argue that the Watsons’ non-incarnational, disembodied theology results in devaluing the biblical role of teacher, leads to egregious hermeneutical issues, and violates principles related to contextualization by unconsciously importing foreign cultural values. These issues may affect long-term health of churches emerging from DBS groups.
The concept of Church Planting Movements (CPM) was made popular by David Garrison,[2] and DMM is essentially the same method. The definition of CPM/DMM is this: “An indigenously led gospel-planting and obedience-based discipleship process that resulted in a minimum of one hundred new locally initiated and led churches, four generations deep, within three years.”[3]
At the heart of DMM strategy is “obedience-based discipleship,” achieved primarily within the context of DBS groups, which are formed by gathering existing affinity groups. The simplicity of the DBS method, as well as the emphasis on obedience to sharing the story, allows for fast replication among a people group. The practitioner does not function as teacher, but as facilitator, encouraging the group to rely on the Spirit as teacher and the Bible alone as the curriculum. Members of the original DBS group then form new groups to facilitate themselves, potentially resulting in exponential growth of disciples and groups.
Theological Foundations: Deculturalized and Disembodied Discipleship
The second chapter of Contagious Disciple Making is called “Disciple-Makers Deculturalize, not Contextualize, the Gospel.” This chapter lays a theological foundation for the method of discipleship and church planting that the Watsons prescribe. They argue against incarnational ministry for the missionary, proposing instead a non-residential model of discipleship, as the missionary’s primary role is catalyzing the movement.[4] The basis for this model is a theology of a now-disembodied Jesus. They assert, “Jesus is no longer flesh and blood, as we know … he has no color, no ethnic heritage, and no cultural distinctions except the holiness and righteousness of God.”[5] They have essentially stripped Jesus of his humanity, proposing that he shed his resurrected body at the Ascension, an assertion made nowhere in Scripture. However, Jesus’ continuing role as Mediator and High Priest between God and Man requires that he maintains his dual nature as both fully God and fully man.
While the Watsons correctly want to minimize the cultural trappings that create unnecessary barriers to the gospel, they overcorrect by discouraging cultural outsiders from embodying the gospel in any manner. This disembodied spirituality leads to a method of disembodied discipleship foreign to the Christian tradition[6] – that of being taught only by the Spirit and not by other humans, who are assumed as having a corrupting influence in communicating the gospel.
The Watsons describe a process of “deculturization” of the gospel, which they define as removing the cultural baggage of the gospel so that it can then be contextualized by DBS groups. These self-theologizing practices initially sound convincing as they help locals discover culturally-appropriate ways of praying, worshiping, and ministering in their culture.[7] Attempting to avoid transferring their cultural trappings into the “DNA” of the potential church, the missionary must never model prayer or worship for those in the DBS group.[8] Such forms and practices must arise spontaneously.
While this model shows a high appreciation for local culture and the varied expressions of Christianity globally, its disembodied nature effectively cuts the budding church from the entire tradition of Christianity. Christianity itself did not arise ex nihilo, but from millennia of traditions, teachings, and practices inherited from Judaism. Discipleship is not a simple matter of reading the Bible and being taught by the Spirit alone, but a complex process that also involves imitation and learning from others. The values of simplicity and quick replication leave new believers in spiritual poverty, cut off from the rich heritage of the great cloud of witnesses (Hebrews 12:1). We are enriched, not corrupted by, the various expressions of Christianity throughout history and across cultures – though it certainly does bring a great deal of complexity.
This foundation of “deculturalized,” disembodied spirituality leads to many problems in the Discovery Bible Study. I will address three in particular here: the devaluing of the biblical role of teacher, engendering irresponsible hermeneutics, and ignoring cultural complexities.
Devaluation of Biblical Role of Teacher
The DBS method rightly places Scripture in the center of discipleship and in the formation of the church from the start. After a time of review and accountability,[9] group members read a passage together from a set list of passages,[10] re-tell the story and get the details correct, and then move on to a series of questions that help the group “discover” God’s truth.
Foundational to this method is the role of the Holy Spirit as the teacher and a facilitator who does not teach, but leads the group to study Scripture by asking a series of questions. This is done in the name of deculturizing the gospel: “The role of the cross-cultural worker is to deculturalize the gospel – presenting the gospel without commentary, but with the question, ‘How will we obey what God has said?’ If it’s not in the Bible, don’t introduce it to the culture.”[11]
The DBS method needlessly dichotomizes learning from the Spirit and learning from a human teacher.[12] This also comes from the core theological issue of disembodiment. Teaching by humans is inferred to be corrupting, while teaching by the Spirit alone is pure and free of error – a belief that may be Neo-Gnostic at its core. The disciples were trained by Jesus, who identified as their rabbi. His teachings were embodied in remarkably physical ways to then be imitated by his disciples. Paul embodied the gospel by the way he and his coworkers lived and taught, and even his letters were delivered and read to the churches by people as an extension of his presence among them. God’s chosen method of communicating with the nations involves the agency of human beings. Theology is often embodied – however imperfectly – by the humans who teach, lead, prophesy, serve, and love in the power of the Holy Spirit.[13]
Teaching is an important role in the New Testament, comprising much of the ministry of Jesus and leaders in the early Church, and included explaining and reinterpreting Old Testament passages, combating false teachings and philosophies, correcting sinful practices, and guarding against misinterpretation of Scripture. Terry notes, “Given the extant threat of all kinds of false teaching, it was unthinkable for the apostle [Paul] to simply entrust believers to the care of the Spirit.”[14]
Irresponsible Hermeneutics
Another consequence of the disembodiment is that the hermeneutical method of DBS ignores contextual complexities inherent in Bible interpretation. No concern for the original context is given, and the group is encouraged to interpret (eisegete) the passage for meaning from only the perspective of their own cultural lens. This dangerous practice treats Scripture subjectively, as if its meaning varies from culture to culture.[15] The core values of simplicity and quick replication cause practitioners to ignore complex contextual issues that occur when reading an ancient text with vast differences of time, place, and culture from the contemporary reader’s. This leads to a faulty, reader-response hermeneutic that fails to take into account the original cultures and audiences of the biblical text.
Ultimately, this dangerous hermeneutic results from their core theological issue of disembodiment. Scripture itself was written within historical contexts, certain languages, religious and political realities, and social contexts. The Watsons treat Scripture itself as a culture-free book that can be read and interpreted by any culture in any place and result in accurate understanding and obedience.
In the absence of human teachers, the Watsons quell any fears of heresy by claiming that the nature of the group will resolve these issues.[16] Facilitators model group correction[17] by asking, “Where do you see that in this passage?” If the heresy continues, the facilitator then introduces a new passage that corrects that thinking. The Watsons claim that “heresy is usually caused by one person who is charismatic and has some education.”[18] This outlandish claim, in addition to denigrating education, fails to consider the many heretical groups throughout history that have existed and broken away from Orthodox Christianity.
The obedience-based hermeneutic also fails to adapt for the many parts of Scripture that do not issue commands to be obeyed. The genre diversity within Scripture is complex: histories, narratives, poetry, proverbs, and yes, commands. The DBS method flattens the complexity of Scripture by asking stilted questions that may not fit the genre. The obedience-based nature of the questions also raises serious theological concerns about whether discipleship in Christ is all about obedience, rather than grace.[19] Is the foundation of our faith what we do, or what God has already done for us in Christ?
There is a disconnect for the Watsons between theology and praxis. The sole focus on obedience leads to an unreflective performance orientation over true spiritual maturity,[20] which they call “autonomic obedience” – obedience one does not have to think about.[21] This concept over-simplifies not only the complexity of the Bible, but also the complexity of life. Obedience to Scripture is sometimes simple, but sometimes requires serious reflection for true faithfulness in complex, modern situations that the Bible does not address directly. It cannot always be autonomic.
In this vein, the Watsons needlessly dichotomize teaching doctrine and teaching obedience to Scripture. David Watson writes, “I have learned that teaching doctrine and teaching obedience are two very different things.”[22] He argues that various practices such as church polity and ordinances carry such cultural baggage that only the Scriptures can be the curricula on them. Thus, the DBS group must interpret Scriptures according to their culture, rather than listen to missionary answers about matters of church polity and expression.[23]
There is an assumption here that all Western cultural influences are corrupting and that there should be no cross-pollination between cultures in the transfer of Christianity from one people to another. Not only is this historically unviable, but it perpetuates the faulty hermeneutic described above where a person comes to a highly enculturated text, and interprets it through his or her own cultural lens. It also assumes that this vacuum-sealed expression of the Church is even possible, let alone desirable. New believers are thus hermetically sealed off from the many embodied expressions of the Church in all its variation, and new believers must learn everything from scratch that Christians spent centuries wrestling through.
Ignoring Cultural Complexities
Jackson Wu rightly notes the unexamined cultural influences that are behind mission methodology, particularly in CPM.[24] The DBS method commits the same offenses, failing to contextualize to the receptor culture and importing Western culture, even while consciously trying to avoid doing so. Their method of group correction is highly dependent upon an imported egalitarian and democratic way of thinking, thus undermining the Watsons’ efforts to “deculturalize” the gospel. In many cultures, if an elder or leader were to make a mistake, no one would dare correct him within a group – it would cause him to lose face and bring shame. Our methods of evangelism and discipleship are, for better or worse, embodied by the practitioner and can never be fully “deculturalized.”
The doctrine of the priesthood of believer[25] is distorted by the Watsons to mean egalitarianism in leadership, rather than access to God.[26] Leadership hierarchies are thus collapsed in favor of an egalitarian, democratic group. The reason for this is speed: “By promoting and insisting on a professional clergy, the church has limited its ability and capacity to reach the world for Christ. We have made it impossible to rapidly expand the church because we cannot produce enough ‘qualified’ leaders to meet the expansion needs.”[27] Pragmatism, speed, egalitarianism, and democracy are American values, but they assume them as biblical values here. The Watsons do not take into account cultures that may value such hierarchies – it is how their societies are structured at every level and is certainly not without biblical precedent.
Cultural complexities are also ignored in the Watsons’ guide on mentoring DBS group leaders, such as patronage, honor and shame, or power distance. The Watsons import a highly Western, egalitarian model of mentoring, describing it as a “two-way learning relationship.”[28] Further, their approach to conflict in mentoring relationships is very Western; direct, face-to-face confrontation would be a rude and shameful cultural blunder in high-context environments.[29] Because these things are all embodied by the practitioner, there is no way to “deculturalize.”
One major aspect of the DBS groups is accountability for obedience and adherence to previously set goals. Each week, group members are asked whether they completed their goals, ignoring the role of social shame within a culture. The members of the group may be saving face for the facilitator, themselves, or for the entire group, and may have no qualms about lying in order to protect honor. Because the DMM model is presented as a strategy that can work in any culture without any major modifications, it overlooks the deep complexities of the target culture, or the unintentionally imported cultural baggage inherent in the strategy itself.
Conclusion
The CPM/DMM model, and the accompanying DBS groups, is phenomenally popular among practitioners around the globe for its simplicity, replicability, and for testimonials promising success. Practitioners love the DBS method because they have seen nonbelievers interacting with Scripture in powerful ways. However, at the theological center of the method is a disembodied spirituality, rather than an incarnational pattern of discipleship, that needs to be carefully assessed for the long-term health of the churches established by this method.
Aubry G. Smith (MA, Columbia International University) trained first-term missionaries on the Arabian Peninsula, and now works with diaspora Muslims.
NOTES
[1] David L. Watson and Paul D. Watson, Contagious Disciple-Making: Leading Others on a Journey of Discovery (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, 2014).
[2] David Garrison, Church Planting Movements: How God is Redeeming a Lost World (Monument, CO: WIGTake, 2003).
[3] Watson and Watson, Contagious Disciple-Making, 3–4.
[4] Watson and Watson, Contagious Disciple-Making, 11.
[5] Watson and Watson, Contagious Disciple-Making, 9–10.
[6] Though they make the claim that DMM is a return to first century church planting. Contagious Disciple Making, 26.
[7] Watson and Watson, Contagious Disciple-Making, 13–14.
[8] Watson and Watson, Contagious Disciple-Making, 145.
[9] The group accountability practices within DBS groups are also problematic and will be discussed below.
[10] The list of thirty “Creation to Christ” Bible passages can be found in the appendix of Contagious Disciple-Making, or on their mobile application, “Discover App.”
[11] Watson and Watson, Contagious Disciple-Making, 17. There are many logical inconsistencies throughout the book, but the most ironic is this one. As the Watsons teach readers the format of the DBS (which is not in Scripture, but has been created by humans), which will be embodied to the group, the reader is also warned not to introduce anything not found in the Bible to the group.
[12] In fact, dichotomization is a frequent logical issue within the entire CPM methodology. George Terry notes this rampant “exclusion of middles” in the T4T method, a slight variation on the CPM model. George A. Terry, “A Missiology of Excluded Middles: An Analysis of the T4T Scheme for Evangelism and Discipleship.” Themelios 42, no. 2 (August 2017): 335–52.
[13] I reject the concept that the groups are taught only by the Spirit, for this particular reason. The study method itself does not arise directly out of Scripture, it must be taught by a human who knows the method. The “facilitator” is, through this method, embodying how to interpret Scripture, how to gather groups, how to disciple others, and how to replicate those groups. The “curriculum” is not just Scripture, but also the life and actions of the facilitator.
[14] Terry, “A Missiology of Excluded Middles: An Analysis of the T4T Scheme for Evangelism and Discipleship,” 346.
[15] They justify this practice by claiming that the Holy Spirit alone teaches them truth through Scripture.
[16] One also wonders, if the Holy Spirit is the teacher, why would he teach heresy to begin with?
[17] The cultural problems with group accountability and correction will be addressed below.
[18] Watson and Watson, Contagious Disciple-Making, 150.
[19] A question for research that is beyond the scope of this article is whether Muslim-background believers misinterpret this obedience-based discipleship for the obedience-dependent faith that they converted from. Do they understand that they obey from a position of acceptance or in order to earn salvation, as in Islam?
[20] Adam Coker, “A Strange Sort of Orthodoxy: An Analysis of the T4T and CPM Approach to Missions,” Southwestern Journal of Theology, vol. 59, no. 1, Fall 2016, 85.
[21] Watson and Watson, Contagious Disciple-Making, 72.
[22] Watson and Watson, Contagious Disciple-Making, 14.
[23] Watson and Watson, Contagious Disciple-Making, 14.
[24] Jackson Wu, “The Influence of Culture on the Evolution of Mission Methods: Using ‘Church Planting Movements’ as a Case Study,” Global Missiology 1, No. 12 (Oct 2014), http://ojs.globalmissiology.org/index.php/english/article/view/1712. Wu identifies distinctively Western/ American cultural biases in CPM: “rapidity, numerical growth, novelty (new believers, new churches) and independence (not letting tradition encumber progress). Also, the strong emphasis on ‘best practices’ displays a bent towards western pragmatism. Inasmuch as success is measured in quantitative terms, CPM theory has an empirical orientation.”
[25] I have to note the logical inconsistency here of teaching doctrines vs. teaching obedience. The Watsons pick and choose which doctrines to teach based on how important they are to the DMM methodology.
[26] John D. Massey, “Wrinkling Time in the Missionary Task: A Theological Review of Church Planting Movements Methodology,” Southwestern Journal of Theology 55, No. 1 (Fall 2012), 123–124.
[27] Watson and Watson, Contagious Disciple-Making, 52. Theological education is here dichotomized with having an empowered laity. The Watsons carry cultural baggage from an American, consumerist church culture with one strong preacher. There is room for something in between.
[28] Watson and Watson, Contagious Disciple-Making, 217.
[29] Watson and Watson, Contagious Disciple-Making, 221–227.
EMQ, Volume 57, Issue 2. Copyright © 2021 by Missio Nexus. All rights reserved. Not to be reproduced or copied in any form without written permission from Missio Nexus. Email: EMQ@MissioNexus.org.
