We’d love to put together a thoughtful response to the critique on DMM at…
https://radiusinternational.org/a-brief-guide-to-dmm/
Would you help us prepare that? Please pick out a topic or paragraph and write a thoughtful response, either biblically or experientially-based. We’ll of course credit you with the thought. Thanks for taking time to response. Just click “Comment” following the web or app version of this item.
I cannot help but think of the story where Christ told the Samaritan woman “Go, call your husband and come back.”
It never says she came to faith….
28 Then, leaving her water jar, the woman went back to the town and said to the people, 29 “Come, see a man who told me everything I ever did. Could this be the Messiah?” 30 They came out of the town and made their way toward him.
Notice she asks “Could this be the Messiah?” Christ used a non-believing woman to bring many to hear the words of Christ.
Later people believed because of what she said… not because she was a believer (yet).
39 Many of the Samaritans from that town believed in him because of the woman’s testimony, “He told me everything I ever did.”
This author puts some words in bold and italics saying this kind of thing did not happen.
I think that it is not very easy to use the story of the Samaritan woman to demonstrate whether unbelievers can or cannot witness to other people in such a way that these “other people” at some point will become genuinely saved. First of all, it is quite difficult to determine whether the Samaritan woman was (or was not) a genuine believer in Jesus Christ when she started to witness to the members of her Samaritan community. Only the Lord can know for sure what was in the heart of this Samaritan woman at the moment she witnessed to others, and whether her experience with Christ was rather superficial or really profound. Here, we must also be very careful not to despise the work of grace and of the Holy Spirit at that moment in the life of this Samaritan woman. There is no doubt in my mind that when Jesus started to talk to her, this Samaritan woman was NOT a genuine believer. However, at the end of his conversation with her, Jesus did reveal Himself to her as being “the Messiah” who was supposed to come (see John 4:25-26). Then, when this Samaritan woman witnessed to other Samaritans she said: “Come, see a man who told me everything that I ever did: is not this the Christ?” (John 4:29). For more than 50 years I have known this text, I always understood that when this Samaritan woman said “is not this the Christ?” she was not expressing some doubt (as if she was not sure whether or not Jesus was the Messiah), but rather that she had come to the conclusion that someone who can tell her everything she had done has to be the Messiah. In other words, she was indeed more likely to be expressing her faith in Christ rather than some type of awful doubts about Christ. Therefore, trying to justify the questionable practice of DMM (unconverted people witnessing to unbelievers) using the story of the Samaritan woman is like trying to build a house on sandy soil (because, after all, the Samaritan woman could have been actually saved after her encounter with Jesus, having recognized Jesus as being the Messiah who was going to come, and who witnessed about this to others). We must always be careful not to build any type of doctrine on “assumptions”, such as “actually, the Samaritan woman was not a genuine believer when she witnessed to other Samaritans” (after all, how do we know that for sure?), and quickly conclude that it is all right then to encourage “unconverted people to evangelize unbelievers” (a DMM common dubious practice).
Andre
The same argument that you use in your response could be used against you. Who are you to say at any one given time that some of the people in the DMM movement are not believers? You assume that they use non-believers to reach out to others and that makes you a judge then on whether they are believers or not?
Dear Steve,
Thank you for your reply. The point that I tried to make in my previous reply was that because it is difficult to clearly determine whether the Samaritan women was (or was not) a genuine believer in Christ, we cannot easily draw some “dogmatic principles” from John 4, and say that “since the Bible does not clearly state that the Samaritan woman was actually a believer when she witnessed to other people, we may assume that she probably was not a believer, and therefore, it is quite good to encourage unconverted people to evangelize unbelievers.” I believe that this type of reasoning is an unwarranted speculation, and such a conclusion (it is good for unconverted people to evangelize unbelievers) is not based on a clear biblical teaching or practice. I hope that you agree with this point.
However, I also said that we (all) must be careful not to despise the work of God in the heart of the Samaritan women (after all, she is likely to have become a genuine believer when she encouraged other people to come and see Jesus). Of course, this positive attitude toward the Samaritan woman must also apply to the people who are involved with the DMM programs. We all hope (myself included), that many (if not all) of the participants in Discipleship Trainings have come to a saving faith in Jesus Christ and that they should go and endeavor to make other genuine disciples of Christ. In the case of the Samaritan woman, we are talking about only ONE person (the Samaritan women who lived 20 centuries ago, which we don’t know much about), whereas, with the DMM programs we are talking about thousands of people, and the Christian experience of all of these people should be well known by other Christians living in our time. Therefore, we all, myself included, must be careful not to quickly jump to conclusion and unwisely classify people as unconverted or converted, unbelievers or believers. Only God knows those who belong to Him (and those who do not)! We all need to be careful concerning this matter.
But then, why at the end of my previous reply, do I call the DMM approach “a DMM common dubious practice”?
Everyone somewhat familiar with the DMM strategy knows that the first step in the DMM approach is to find “a Person of Peace” wherever we may go, and start having “Discovery Bible Studies” in the home of that “Person of Peace”. Because it is question here to “reach the unreached”, usually these “Persons of Peace” are not at first “converted people” (although, very occasionally, some of them may have heard about Jesus before), but they are just “congenial people.” Nevertheless, these “Persons of Peace” are often rapidly encouraged to invite members of their families, their friends and neighbors to come and participate in these “Discovery Bible Studies”. These “Persons of Peace” are quickly encouraged to lead these “Discovery Bible Studies” and to encourage the members of the group to also go and witness to others. At such a point, it is possible that SOME of the people who are discipled this way have become genuine believers… and I don’t see here a problem to encourage such new disciples to “share their faith” with others. Nevertheless, if we proceed too quickly with this type of practice, we may “encourage a number of unconverted people to evangelize unbelievers.” How people who have not actually receive the divine light and life from Christ can communicate such light and life to other people who are dead in their trespasses? Do you agree that in such a situation, the risk to uselessly send unconverted people to evangelize unbelievers does exist? Do you think that proceeding this way (sending some unconverted people to evangelize unbelievers) is rather unbiblical and quite questionable?
The norm is that “genuine believers must witness to unbelievers”. As the Bible says, “the grace that saves us teaches us to say ‘no’ to ungodliness and worldly lusts and to live soberly, righteously and godly in this present world.” (Titus 2:11-12). First, we all need to experience “Saving Grace”. Then, this “Saving Grace” shall teach us how we must behave in this world. This is clear here in the Scriptures. Otherwise, we may “put the cart before the horses”, that is to say to encourage unbelievers to please the Lord with the strength of the flesh, before they are genuinely saved. “Obedience” must follow genuine “saving grace” (and not “saving grace” must follow “Obedience”). See here a good article about this point: http://ojs.globalmissiology.org/index.php/english/article/viewFile/1811/4017
Now, I would like to say that it not just me who is saying that a number of DMM program participants may be unconverted and are sent to reach unbelievers, for DMM leaders are also well aware of such a risk: a few years ago, while I was serving the Lord in a French-speaking country of West Africa, some DMM leaders from Nigeria were invited to share their experience with us. I was asked to translate in French the main DMM speaker from Nigeria (who spoke in English). He explained what they usually do when some Muslims in Nigeria manifest a certain interest about Jesus. They encourage such Muslims to participate in a Discipleship Training for 6 months (I translated that information in French) … Then, the DMM leader added that “none of all the participants in these 6 months Discipleship Programs were actually “born again” when they started to participate in those programs.” I was quite surprised by such a statement (and was very hesitant to translate that declaration to our French-speaking audience), because someone who is not born again can neither see nor enter into God’s kingdom (see John 3:3,6). What can we teach to such a person? Just to obey God’s word with his own strength, and go and teach others? (As a matter of fact, Jesus did not send Nicodemus anywhere to do anything, although he was a Doctor of the Law!). The old nature cannot produce the fruit of righteousness. Of course, we all hope (myself included) that at some point, most participants (if not all) in such Discipleship Programs are going to eventually be regenerated, but it is always possible that a number of them may get just “head knowledge” during such programs but not “redemption”. I am just trying here to be “realistic” (and not to negatively criticize anyone or anything), and to be encouraging everyone to be prudent about such matters (and not to misjudge anyone or anything).
Therefore, please, do not suspect that I am condemning everything and everyone concerning the DMM activities. I do want to hope for the best (the Lord can use any type of method, even some better or worse than that of the DMM approach). However, I believe that as Christians we need to encourage other believers to serve the Lord and make more disciples, but we also must remain cautious with some people whom we may know and who do not sh0w much maturity in their spiritual life (and who may even be unconverted). In such a case, encouraging such people to reach out to unbelievers may be very unwise. And this particular danger does exist with the DMM methodology.
Andre,
Thanks for your good, interesting comments.
Are you aware of the Bible Translation movement in the world in the last, say 75 years? Very often an expat Bible translator has only non-believers to help with the word choice, key terms, and translation. Sometimes this results in the mother tongue speaker coming to Christ (5 years, 10 years later) but often it does not.
Is that okay that the non-believer (who often forms a committee of “helpers” —-who may be non-believers too) has so much influence over the translation?
If his committee of say “five other men in the village” talk about biblical terms and ideas all day and provide suggestions for the translation, is that a bad thing or not?
I’m not picking a fight…. just saying that long before the “person of peace” idea came along, non-believers were getting other non-believers together to talk about (study) the things of the Bible.
My previous post about the Samaritan woman was in direct rebuttal to this bold-print statement made:
Further, there are no examples of the apostles, nor any other leader, employing unbelievers in the work of evangelism.
Of course this author (from a strong Reformed background) would be very dubious about anyone today coming to Christ through visions. Some of those who come to Christ this way go on to lead Bible Studies. That would be unacceptable per this article, because they did not come via a preacher and trained minister.
The author starts a statement with this…. “There is simply no evidence of any character in the Bible being commanded to, nor providing the example of….” and then uses it to decry a straw man of the DMM movement.
We could start such a sentence and follow it with “…. lead people in a worship service with organs…” or any number of things we do systematically in churches today.
He seems to think that if we do not see it done in the NT we cannot do it. That would certainly eliminate passing an offering plate each Sunday or singing a solo in church.
That is just a faulty premise.
This is a silly argument, but humor me. The author states…..
“We grieve that so many have been encouraged to embrace a methodology that is fundamentally flawed. We confidently trust the head of the church, Jesus Christ, to correct this trend. We believe that Christ will build his church and the gates of Hell will not prevail against it.”
Just a couple sentences later he says ….
“We believe they are able to reach the necessary level of language fluency and cultural awareness required to speak as adults to the people group to whom they have been sent.”
What? I thought he said that Christ will build His church no matter what? But now building the church is dependent on a person having language fluency and cultural awareness (both items that his organizations “sells” by the way).
No where in the Scripture does it say (I say this tongue in cheek, based on his “it must be in the Scripture” premise) does it say we must reach fluency and be culturally aware.
The same kind of argument he is making against DMMs could be made against those who teach we need to be good linguists and cultural anthropologists.
He could cry…. “the early church did not set up language schools…. teach missiological strategy! Heresy! It is Christ who is building His church and all your human linguistic efforts are claiming some credit.”
By his same measure we could accuse him of having “embraced a methodology that is fundamentally flawed” by his teaching that we need to be better linguists so the church can be planted.
Steve, thanks for your help. You’ve included several great (and helpful) comments that we can use.
The author of the blog post would do well to read Matthew Bates’ book Salvation By Allegiance Alone (let alone the synoptic gospels) before crying ‘heresy’ on DMM’s discipleship theology.
Great book by Bates, by the way.
THanks for the help, Karl. Appreciate it.
If you have a moment (anyone else willing to help with this item), please give us your honest feedback about whether or not some of the Watsons’ teachings might be the main target here — rather than DMM practices in general. In other words, how could a guy write an article against the practice of “becoming a disciple worth multiplying,” helping a small group of new would-be followers learn to read the Bible for themselves, emphasizing prayer, etc. These practices in and of themselves aren’t from a different or strange “doctrine,” are they? So — does some of this negative thought stream from a variant that the Watsons, in particular, are encouraging? Help me out here please.
I agree with the author that Jesus’ method was different!
What do we mean by the word ‘gospel’? do we mean what most evangelicals have made out of it?
The Gospel is about Jesus dying for our sins and rising from the dead, thus conquering death and offering us eternal life. (that is true and I am grateful for Jesus that he accomplished that also but…)
IF this definition is true how is it possible that, three years before going to the cross, Jesus went about preaching the ‘gospel’? The question is: what did JESUS mean by the gospel?
When Jesus used the word ‘gospel’ Jesus was refering that the gospel is the ‘Good News’ that the KIngdom of God has come with HIM ( meaning the reign of God AND salvation) The message of the Kingdom of God was Jesus’ central theme over 3 years! How come we do not teach it in discipleship courses?
Jesus told his disciples to preach the Good News about the Kingdom of God. This is what HE modelled. Luke 4:43 says: but Jesus told them, “I must preach the good news(gospel) of the kingdom of God to the other towns as well, because that is why I was sent.”!
Now when we quote the great commission we mostly miss out the last part: …” and teaching them ALL that I have commanded you”
Are we obedient to Jesus’ command if we neglect his teaching?Even after his resurection (Acts 1:3) we read:”He appeared to them over a span of forty days and spoke about the kingdom of God”
So what was Jesus teaching his disciples( and us!)? He taught about the Kingdom of God. There are more then 100 verses in the Gospels that speak about the Kingdom of God and only two about the church.
I believe we need to rediscover today the gospel of the Kingdom again. Jesus gave us 3 things to remember about the Kingdom
1. Seek God’s Kingdom FIRST (not DMM)
2. pray for God’s Kingdom to come; and
3. share this gospel of the kingdom with all people
Jim Wallis in his book: ‘The (un)Common Good’ says:” It is almost as if Jesus wasted three years with all his parables, teachings, and miracles about the meaning of “the kingdom of God”, which the NT says he came to bring.”
It’s time we start be obedient disciples to what Jesus taught and modelled.
I am wondering what this means….
Acts 18: 6 But when they opposed Paul and became abusive, he shook out his clothes in protest and said to them, “Your blood be on your own heads! I am innocent of it. From now on I will go to the Gentiles.”
7 Then Paul left the synagogue and went next door to the house of Titius Justus, a worshiper of God.
In Acts we see these “worshipers of God” and “God-fearing Gentiles” mentioned. Sometimes the disciples started there.
Of course that does not answer our question conclusively, but certainly they illustrate the idea of “finding a friendly environment” which I imagine is one place where our friends get the idea of a “person of peace.” I dont use the phrase myself, but it appears that the idea is there to a certain extent.
How much did the hosting person (likely not a born again believer yet) have to say in any one discussion, we are not told. But would he have invited his friends and family? Likely.