Discipleship today is often described as Christian living in general, following the specific example or model of Christ, and reflecting his character. But all of these are inadequate or incomplete to describe what Jesus himself practiced.  He didn't tell persons: "Come along with me so you'll learn something." Jesus always called persons to himself ("Follow me"), always focused them on his person, not what he did. Throughout Jesus' earthly function to reveal the Father, he focused on establishing followers of his person--not mere pupils who learned from him. These disciples were adherents of Jesus the person, not just to his divine teachings. Discipleship during Jesus' earthly presence meant being directly involved with and committed to him, even if not always physically present with him.

In contrast to today, the term for disciple (mathetes) was common in Greek at the time of Jesus. This difference in contexts can either strain our perceptions of the meaning of disciple or disconnect us from Jesus' original intent for all those who follow him. The term mathetes itself does not determine the type of discipleship; that was determined by the teacher or leader. But the common understanding of a disciple was an "adherent" to that teacher; the emphasis was not on learning or being a pupil but on adherence, the terms of which were determined by the teacher. While Jesus' gathering of disciples around him paralleled the rabbis of Judaism, he went well beyond the recognized boundaries of a rabbi, redefining the common practices and creating a distinctly new teacher-disciple relationship. The terms for adherence Jesus practiced are fundamental for us to understand in our relationship with him.

In his study of the term disciple (mathetes), Wilkins makes a case for calling Matthew's Gospel a manual on discipleship.^[7] Yet the same can be said for all the narratives of Jesus. Throughout his earthly life Jesus taught, demonstrated but most of all intimately interacted with his disciples to help them to see, to understand and to experience how he wanted their adherence to him to be. And contrary to the relationship we commonly perceive with Christ, he did not establish a learning relationship. The concept of disciple that Jesus practiced was about relationship. It wasn't an instructional model, an institutional model, nor even a servant model.  His model disciple is one who experiences intimate relationship with him. The adherence was not to teachings, principles, beliefs or his character but first and foremost to his person, to relationship with him and its relational process. Discipleship and being a disciple are a function of this relationship and not about anything else.

Discipleship is this intimate relational process which Jesus defined by his person and words, and which his Spirit helps us live and experience to its fullness. When we see the incarnation (especially between the manger and the cross, as John helps us do in his first chapter), we can never get away from Jesus' words to "Follow me." Likewise, along with his person we can never get away from relationship. Relationship is intrinsic to Jesus Christ, it is God's nature.

Since the goal of discipleship is not attaining information, nor simply learning, this can open our perceptions to the real purpose of experiencing this relationship and enjoying intimate fellowship together (as revealed between the persons of the Godhead). In the incarnation, Jesus' person vulnerably emerges to pursue us in order to intimately connect with him, so that we can be taken to his Father and be intimately involved with him in their family together. Jesus' focus and effort during the incarnation coincide with the Father's plan and desires (as defined in Rom 8:29) for us to be relationally like his Son in function as his daughters and sons, and he as our Father, and all of us as his family. This focus by the Son and the Father, and now extended by the Spirit, is on the person and the relationship between persons. This is God's desire, this is his design and purpose, this is what he wants us to have and to experience.

The relational significance of this process of intimate relationship is not readily apparent in the pursuit of discipleship if we are predisposed to define ourselves by what we do and to do our relationship based on this "outside-in" approach. As Jesus vulnerably opened his heart and made himself relationally accessible, he called persons to be intimately involved with him and their lives will be changed. But such transformation doesn't take place apart from the relationship. Peter struggled with transformation as a disciple because he did relationship with Jesus primarily from an "outside-in" approach. In his last recorded words to Peter prior to his ascension, Jesus had a crucial interaction with him. Without completely reviewing that well-known "Do you love me?" interaction (Jn 21:15-22), Jesus closes by emphatically stating to Peter (and to reemphasize his first imperative in v.19): "You must follow me" (v.22). Why was it necessary to tell Peter this--as if he weren't a disciple?

Essentially, the first (Mt 4:19) and last earthly words Peter heard Jesus say to him were "Follow me." Was Peter not grasping something? Indeed he wasn't. In the last exchange Peter wasn't making relational connection with Jesus such that he really heard and saw Jesus' person in the three "Do you love me?" questions and answers.  In all three responses, Peter focused on Jesus "knowing" (Gk. oida) and his ability to know intimately, not by learning (vv.15, 16, 17). While Jesus certainly has this ability and knowledge, he was not seeking information here from Peter. If not information, what was Jesus seeking?

In spite of the painful relational consequences of his recent denials (which were past and forgiven), Peter still didn't seem to focus on Jesus' person and their relationship. Yes, Jesus knew (oida) that Peter loved him at least with phileo love. But this wasn't about information; it never is about information as far as God is concerned.  It's only and always about the relationship and our intimate relational involvement. This relational response is what Jesus was seeking from Peter because Peter's love didn't translate into the relational process and transmit in their relationship. So, Jesus once again had to refocus Peter on what's important: "Follow me" (v.19), that is, concentrate on being with me and devote your person to our relationship.

Did this put Peter in the right perspective and in the proper relational context? It should have if Peter hadn't been so predisposed by his "outside-in" approach. Right after Jesus said "Follow me," Peter noticed John behind them (v.20) and inquired "Lord, what about him" (v.21). Where do you think Peter was focused in this moment? His seemingly innocent question demonstrates that Peter was still not focused on Jesus' person but on secondary, situational things. This problem is common in how we do relationships when the total person (significantly the heart) is given a lower priority than what we do. The relational consequence is that we easily overlook each other, functioning in the relationship with substitutes, as Peter continues to experience here.

Jesus was not only dissatisfied with their connection here, he was displeased. Peter tried his loving patience.  His response to Peter's question, "what is that to you?" (v.22), expressed rebuke from Jesus which Peter needed; in our vernacular the words might be "That is none of your business." This is why Jesus, then, emphatically made it imperative to Peter: "You must follow me"--the only imperative that Peter needed to hear and focus on. This relationship was the primary issue throughout the struggles in Peter's life; their relationship was the primary focus for Jesus here and throughout their time together, in which he was always pursuing Peter. This is expanded in the last chapter.

Nothing was more important to God than this intimate relationship. Peter was into doing something more than the relationship. But his last exchange with Jesus was not about serving--only about their relationship. That's what being a disciple is all about, which the early disciples struggled to grasp. Discipleship is a function only of this relationship.

What does this tell us about what's important to God? What does this tell us about his priorities? It's vital for us to grasp his relational messages here (just as we need to grasp in Jn 12:26). In God's design and purpose, it's the person (from the "inner-out") who is always more important than the work/service (from the "outside-in"). Our primary work is always relational work. That is, the relationship always takes primacy over anything else; all else is secondary (not necessarily unimportant) to our relationship with him. There is no substitute for it. Therefore, this relationship needs to be restored for discipleship to be of significance because the imperative from Christ to "Follow me" is the relational imperative.

Thankfully, the intimate relational process of discipleship continued to develop for Peter and the others after Jesus' ascension and the Spirit's arrival. This was not lost on even the opposing leaders of Judaism in their day. During their conflicts with the ministry of the early church, they confronted Peter and John (Acts 4:1ff). After interrogating them before the Sanhedrin, those leaders were astonished with Peter and John (v.13). They understood that Peter and John didn't attend any rabbinic schools nor had any religious credentials; yet, these disciples confidently and boldly articulated their beliefs and expressed their convictions. The leaders fully comprehended that the only thing which distinguished Peter and John was "they had been with Jesus."  "With (Gk. syn) Jesus"--that is, those who had a close connection and involvement with Jesus, not that they were merely in his company, nor only occupied the same space. The religious establishment realized that a whole new disciple and discipleship were on the scene which threatened their system of how they defined themselves, how they did relationships and how they did religion.

Following Jesus indeed threatens how we define ourselves from the outside in, how we then do relationships based on this, and how all this influences (even controls) how we do church today. These three critical issues and their interrelations will be a constant tension throughout our study which have to be addressed.

The relational imperative of being a disciple is extended when Jesus gave all his disciples the further imperative in the Great Commission to "make disciples" (Mt 2 8:19). With these words Jesus brings closure to his earthly ministry and physical presence. There has been a progression to his incarnation--the relational progression. It is a notable progression for us to grasp with our heart and embrace relationally. It begins, as John said, when Jesus objectified the glory of God--presenting God's heart, his intimate relational nature and his vulnerable presence--not merely as truthful information but openly functioning in his person and words. This God person relationally extended himself to us, pursued us and made his self accessible for us: to receive him, to follow and be involved with him, to be intimate friends, to take us to his Father as his very own children and to become family together. Then, he asks us to share his love, this family love, with others and help build his family. The whole story of Jesus reads as love story--the story of family love--the relational progression of which continues through his Spirit.

This relational progression cannot take place without relational connection; and it cannot continue without ongoing intimate relational involvement. Being a disciple is only a function of this relationship. Discipleship is the process of this relational progression.

Nothing else distinguishes a disciple but this specific relationship. When Jesus told us, his disciples, to "make disciples," he used the Greek verb matheteuo. This verb is significantly distinguished from another similar verb matheo, which simply means to learn without any attachment to the teacher. A learner is not what Jesus means by disciple. Yet, is matheo the dominant practice in our churches, is such learning the primary emphasis in our seminaries?

Matheteuo signifies the kind of disciple Jesus wants. When the early church preached the good news and "won a large number of disciples" (Acts 14:21), the NIV rendering here can be confusing. The verb used for "won" is matheteuo. This was not the practice of "winning" souls and gaining decisions for Christ, which have become our common indicators of evangelism. We should not assume that being a disciple and discipleship underlie or are implied in our Christian practice, what we do in church, nor in our theology. Discipleship may not be involved in or related to any of these unless it is specifically defined as such according to the person and words of Jesus.

A disciple is an adherent and, therefore, has attachment to his/her teacher. For Jesus, this can only take place within the relational context, as he demonstrated, practiced and defined during his incarnation. The extent of this relationship involves deeper and deeper connection, which obviously then goes beyond the mind and necessitates the heart. This implies the intimate relationship between the vulnerable heart of Jesus (teacher, didaskolos) and the open heart of his disciple (mathetes). Note that the relational process of this outcome is two-way.

Adherence involves relational commitment while attachment entails relational involvement. In this sense Jesus also exercised adherence and attachment to his disciples. It wasn't sufficient for God to merely come in the flesh in order for us to be able to be a disciple as described above. It was also necessary for Jesus to open his heart and make it vulnerable to us in order for us to be deeply touched, affected and therefore changed as his true disciples. Jesus is also vulnerably committed to and involved with his disciples, so they can intimately connect with his person, be involved with his heart and experientially know him. Relationship with Christ always involves the efforts of both of us.  And this relational work requires the person and heart of both to ongoingly engage the relational process in order to grow in intimate relationship. Jesus doesn't settle for anything less and we can't afford to settle for less either.

This raises a very important issue for us to examine honestly. It is quite possible that we don't take seriously Jesus' call to "Follow me" because we aren't looking for a deep relationship or don't want one. This even begs the question: could the reason we inadvertently stay away from Jesus' words be that we really don't want this kind of relationship?

When the rich young man pursued Jesus for eternal life, he called Jesus "Good teacher" (didaskolos, Mk 10:17). But, this successful young guy wasn't looking for a relationship.  He only wanted to know what he must do to qualify for more. He only wanted more (longevity) of what he had and did (which by most standards was a lot) because that's how he defined himself. That's also how he defined Jesus, as only a good teacher to give him information. He was only there as a student simply to learn  (matheo); he didn't want the intimate relationship of a disciple (mathetes). Since this young guy defined himself from the "outside in," Jesus lovingly responded to redefine him from the inner first; he pointed him to the relational work ("follow me") which was more important, as he tried to free him from his enslavement to define himself by what he did and had (Mk 10:21). But the young guy was unwilling to change.

Maybe this successful guy also had on his agenda benefiting from this good teacher, so that he could eventually go out to be a teacher himself--that is, in the rabbinic tradition of Judaism (disciples went on to become teachers), instead of the relationally unique discipleship Jesus offered. This raises a related issue of even greater importance to all Christians: pursuing relationship with Jesus on our terms.

It is very probable that we, in effect, only give lip service to "Follow me"--no matter what our track record in service or church participation may be--because we want, need or only will have the relationship on our terms.

When we formulate discipleship, the Jesus whom we have in our perceptions to follow often tends to be contextualized by a prevailing culture (including Christian subculture). That is, we often perceive of a popular Jesus, not the Jesus of the incarnation. A popular Jesus effectively becomes a Jesus we want to follow on our
terms--one who may be more palatable or less threatening. This is why in our practice we tend to perceive of Jesus going from the manger straight to the cross. The complete narratives of Jesus not only define who, what, how he is but also the terms of relationship with him.

If discipleship involves having "faith in Christ" (which will be discussed in the next chapter) or being "with Jesus," then what does being with him involve?

From the dynamics of relationships we understand that a relationship requires at least cooperation between persons for that relationship to work, for it to function. The first disciples followed Jesus around, shared the same space, spent a lot of time together and participated jointly in numerous activities. Does this constitute being "with Jesus"? How we answer this will be strongly influenced by how we practice being with anyone, which is determined by how we define ourselves more than anything else. The issue is basically whether we approach the person from the outer-to-inner order of importance or from the inner-outward priority. The tension and conflict between these approaches directly relate to determining the terms of our relationship with Christ.

Let's look at this in the context of Jesus' person and words. Even though it was understood in those days that a disciple (mathetes) was an adherent, it was only the teacher (didaskolos) who determined the specific terms of adherence. A disciple was not in a position to negotiate the terms of their relationship; it was common even to pay rabbis to be their disciple. Jesus certainly revolutionized the nature of mathetes and transformed what it means to be a disciple of his. One incident in particular illustrates these changes.

On this occasion Jesus was questioned about the difference between his disciples and those of the Pharisees and John (Lk 5:33ff). The latter groups of disciples frequently fasted while his disciples enjoyed freely eating. In this interaction Jesus makes two vital distinctions for all his disciples which are fundamental to how God sees us, to our relationship with him and our identity:

1.  The religious leaders indicated what was important from an outer-to-inner self-definition based on what they do. Jesus focused on the reason for celebrating as more important than what we do (v.34). His response indicates, in effect, that the person from inner-out is what's necessary for his disciples because that's how God sees us and defines us.
 

2.  Jesus also tells us that the relationship is always primary and more important than what we do. And what we do is never an end in itself (even if it serves our self-interest) but must have relational significance. What is the purpose of fasting?After Jesus was no longer physically present, then his disciples fasted (v.35)--because the purpose of fasting is always this relational connection. For Jesus and his disciples, nothing else subordinates this relationship nor substitutes for this relational involvement.

Despite the disciples' experience above, they struggled in their relationship with Jesus. It takes more than cooperation to be truly with Christ. A relationship also requires willfully open persons to advance from only doing something between them to actually making relational connection together, especially with their hearts. Our willful openness obviously involves cooperation but the nature and extent of this openness is determined only by Jesus.

While cooperation may be enough for a working relationship, a learning relationship and a casual relationship, it is not sufficient by itself to be with Jesus--no matter how diligent and sincere. There are two ways cooperation is exercised in a relationship. One is cooperation as submission, which will be discussed in the next chapter. The second is to use cooperation as negotiation--or process of exchange to get something you want--which essentially involves the terms of the relationship. This assumes that the terms are negotiable and mutual agreement with those terms is possible. Whether such negotiations are conducted directly in the open or indirectly by hidden agendas, intentionally or unintentionally, these assumptions are critical errors of understanding and judgment. God doesn't negotiate the terms of the relationship, and agreement with his terms is totally our decision.

Openness in our relationship with Christ implies the inner-outward approach of the person. If we use the outward-inner approach, then that implies our control of our inner person (whether to hide or protect) and how far we will be vulnerable with our true person. God sees us from the inside first; our heart is always what he looks at. And that's how he defines us. Obviously, then, God sees our true inner person in all its humanity, so what good would trying to embellish it with secondary outer things accomplish? How else do we think we can present ourselves to him without being deceiving of the truth about us? The consequence of these attempts and the outward-in approach is always some measure of relational distance. That's why his is the only way he does relationships.  These terms are nonnegotiable.

The terms of the relationship of a disciple are clearly illustrated in contrasting situations where persons are faced with the opportunity to follow Jesus. Let's examine three of these contrasts to better understand Jesus' terms for relationship.

The first contrast.  When Matthew, a tax (toll) collector, was called by Jesus "Follow me," he was at work (Mt 9:9). Being employed by a chief tax collector (like Zacchaeus in Lk 19:2) who was contracted by the Roman government involved a system of collecting fees on the goods and services passing through. The system commonly lent itself to abuse and often employed unethical workers without loyalties who engaged in a loose, ritually unclean lifestyle. Consequently, tax collectors were identified as the "enemy" by some segments of the Jewish community and were despised by practicing religious people. Despite this background, Matthew responded immediately (Luke says he left everything, Lk 5:28) and followed Jesus. Obviously, Jesus crossed social, cultural and religious boundaries here; but it should be clear also that Matthew crossed these boundaries as well. Aside from the conviction of the Spirit, how could Matthew undertake such a drastic, 180° identity change? He certainly couldn't have responded to Jesus if he continued an outer-in approach to his person. Matthew had to change how he saw himself (given how most everyone else saw him by what he did) and how he defined himself in order to follow Christ and be involved with him. There was no other way he would even consider such a response.

This is the only way Jesus would even extend his call. That's why in contrast to Matthew we return to the successful young guy discussed earlier (Mk 10:17ff). When Jesus told him the primary matter of importance was to "Follow me" (v.21), he wouldn't let go of how he saw himself and how he defined himself by what he had and did. How could he undertake such significant relational involvement without changing how he defined himself and, thus, did relationships?

The second contrast.  The fishermen (the brothers Simon and Andrew, James and John) were also at work when Jesus called them (Mk 1:16-20). They immediately left job, family, everything to follow him (vv.18,20; Mk 10:28). This wasn't merely a career change--although, in my bias, I think fishermen would welcome a career move-- but a totally new life. What does this tell us about their response?  They certainly didn't know the details of this new life. And as they struggled with specific aspects of this life, especially Peter, they might have considered turning back at times. Their ongoing response to follow Jesus tells us where and what their commitment was.

These disciples stand in contrast to some other would-be disciples. The latter exercised definite initiative and displayed strong interest in following Jesus but were only would-be disciples (Lk 9:57-62). One of them replied to his call "first let me go and bury my father" (v.59). A legitimate request but Jesus responded essentially that there are two realities here (v.60): (1) the social reality of the world which includes the family of those who are spiritually dead; while a definite reality in which we all participate, he is telling us not to be controlled by it nor let it define us; (2) in contrast, he brings forth the reality of the kingdom of God, that is, the family of those who are alive, new in Christ, free from the control and definition of lies which dominate the social reality of the world; this new reality needs to be "proclaimed" to others because people need this family of the living and God wants all to be in his family. Following him is about more than interest, however strong, but about attachment and priority.

A second guy declared his plans to follow Jesus but first wanted to "go back and say good-bye to my family"  (v.61). Seems reasonable, but this was really an excuse because saying good-bye (Gk. apotasso) in their cultural context connotes a lengthy process (maybe many years) and a number of duties to perform before leaving.  This guy may have had a stronger interest to follow Jesus than he had in his family. But he obviously had a stronger attachment to his family; attachments (which are of the heart) would always exert greater influence than interests (which work in the mind), no matter how strong. As a result of his attachment, his first priority was still with his family over Christ.

Christ demands that in terms of our interests, attachments and priorities, everything else must be subordinated to him. When Jesus talked about the need to "give up" (same Greek word as good-bye, apotasso) everything to be his disciple (Lk 14:33), this is not about relinquishing all else and detaching ourselves from them, particularly the relationships he described earlier (Lk 14:26). This is about relational priority and what/who will determine our lives. That's why Jesus emphasized to the second guy above (Lk 9:62) that anything less is a compromise, that it's not "fit for service" (Gk. euthetos, usable, suitable), that is, it's not relationally meaningful in God's family.

The third contrast.  The last contrast examines the issue of focusing on what we do or on how we make relational connection. It involves two definite disciples whom Jesus loved--the sisters Martha and Mary. Their involvement with Christ helps us to understand how relational consequences (distance) or outcomes (connection) happen.

One of their interactions with Jesus was the well-known scene which took place in their home (Lk 10:38-42). Martha worked on all the preparations (Gk. diakonia, service, ministry involving compassionate labor benefiting others) necessary for hospitality--work (diakoneo) which, on the one had, was culturally hers to do while, on the other, was an opportunity to serve Jesus (v.40). Mary seemed to ignore the work (diakoneo) which was also culturally hers to do and chose instead to engage with Jesus in a manner not customarily available to women (sit at the feet of a rabbi as a disciple). The key here is where their focus was. Martha was engaged in important service; though her good intentions were to fulfill this service, Martha "was distracted" (v.40) by the work. From our earlier discussion of Jesus' words about serving (diakoneo) in John 12:26, diakoneo emphasizes the work to be done, not the relationship. Jesus gives priority to the relationship of being with him. Martha did something for Christ and occupied the same space with him but it was Mary who was truly with Jesus. Mary didn't participate with Martha in serving because she chose the relationship first, focusing on how to make connection.  Jesus fully affirmed Mary and told Martha "but only one thing is needed" (v.42). The word for "need" (Gk. chreia) means act of using, employment, that in which one is employed. Jesus seems to tell us that only one life activity or vocation is really important: to focus on being with Christ and be ongoingly involved in the relationship.

Such relational work takes serious full-time effort. Two other interactions the sisters had with Jesus demonstrate this effort. Immediately after their brother Lazarus died, Jesus was on his way to visit them (Jn 11:17ff). When Martha heard he was coming, she took the initiative to go meet him (v.20)--a good relational effort by Martha. But in their interaction she didn't seem to extend that effort to make deeper connection with Jesus. Whether due to culture, personality, or both, she seemed reserved or constrained, resulting in a pleasant but somewhat merely mind-level exchange. I don't think Martha expressed what was on her heart. Mary repeated the exact same initial words as Martha upon seeing Jesus (vv.21,32) but she let all her feelings out also. Because Mary opened her heart to him, Jesus was touched and moved in his heart (vv.33b, 35, 38). In those moments, Mary connected with her Teacher (didaskolos) and experienced him more deeply and, as a result, came to know him as never before. This is the kind of effort involved in relational work.

In their next interaction Mary went to the next level of their relationship. During a dinner at their house soon before Jesus' triumphal entry (Jn 12:1-8), Martha served (diakoneo) again but didn't complain (v.2); hopefully, she learned more about discipleship from the earlier dinner. Mary let her heart be expressed to new heights. Whether she followed the lead of the prostitute (see Lk 7:36ff) or acted spontaneously from her own creative heart, Mary made another costly choice (v.3). With the cost of the perfume (a year's wages, v.5) also added to this decision, she once again went against cultural norms and practice to literally let her hair down to intimately connect with Jesus and humbly in love attend to his needs. Mary was engaged in the deepest relational work of a disciple; in Jesus' own words he describes this as "a beautiful [Gk. kalos, in quality and character] thing [Gk. ergon, work of her vocation] to me" (Mt 26:10).

This was an ultimate expression of diakoneo in which Mary both served Jesus while intimately enjoying his person more than ever before. She grew and experienced more of this relational outcome of discipleship because she seized with unrestrained heart the opportunity to be with Jesus' intimate presence (v.8). Love acts this way, it always makes the person and the relationship most important. That's how Jesus involves himself with us and how he wants us to follow him.

These relational outcomes don't happen unintentionally--that is, without serious relational effort. This great effort (Gk. agonizomai), which Jesus (Lk 13:24) and Paul
(1 Tim 6:12) both said is imperative, involves only the relational process of developing intimate relationship with God.  Discipleship is only about this relational imperative. Anything other than this is a substitute or settling for less, and only pursuing relationship with Jesus on our terms.

From our scriptural understanding of God in how he is with us along with how he is with himself (by the interaction between the persons of the Trinity), we can certainly conclude that God is a relational being of heart. Furthermore, as Jesus revealed of God's glory, God's nature is intimately relational. Jesus' person and words bring us the intimately relational God of heart, vulnerably present for us to have relationship with--relationship only on his terms, not ours. The holy and eternal God can't do relationships any other way.

Given what and how God is, there are two characteristics for all Christian practices which are unavoidably necessary:

1.  First, Christian practice has to be relationship-specific (person to person), that is, from my person to God's person (and/or other persons).

2.  Secondly, it has to have relational significance (heart to heart), that is, develop toward and grow in intimate relational connection; intimacy is hearts open to each other and coming together in the relationship.

If who, what and how we are in our Christian practice does not have this relational context, does not include relational substance and does not make relational connection, then our practice has no relational significance to God and, therefore, is useless to him (e.g., our worship, Mt 15:8,9a). The Christian life and discipleship are only a function of relationship. This is how God is and does relationship, his created design and purpose for life, and the distinctive way we need to live.

It is of further importance for us to understand that the relationship is always a reciprocal process. Consequently, God doesn't do all the work in the relationship nor do we. Yet, this means we have to get actively involved in the relational process of discipleship and engage in serious relational work. The absence of our part has relational consequences but our relational effort will always have a relational outcome.

Jesus discussed this relational outcome in the metaphor of the vine and the branches. We tend to view this metaphor in a static way, like structural importance. Actually, Jesus is providing understanding of a very dynamic process--the dynamic reciprocal relational process. Each time he identifies our part in the relationship with the word "remain" (Gk. meno, abide, dwell) a relational outcome is also identified (Jn 15:4-11). This relational outcome reflects the fact of being his disciples (v.8). But this fact is not a title or status, a role or identity, but a relational process.

Previously, Jesus discussed a more dramatic relational outcome in a familiar verse that Christians don't usually look at relationally: "you will know the truth and the truth will set you free" (Jn 8:32). But this verse is contingent on the previous verse, "If you hold to my teaching, you are really my disciples" (v.31). The word "hold" is the same as "remain" (meno), the relational act of abiding, dwelling. "Teaching" (Gk. logos) involves the essence of the person, not merely principles, ways or propositions.  "If you abide, dwell in my person, you are my authentic disciples" describes an intimate relational process. The outcome is that you will know "the truth," that is, you will intimately experience and come to know my person, the Truth (Jn 14:6), whom Thomas didn't know yet. The result of this relational experience "will set you free" (redemption), so that you can be his Father's son/daughter and  "belong" (meno) in his family permanently (8:35)--the ultimate relational outcome for his disciples ongoingly engaged in the reciprocal relational process of discipleship in the relational progression.

What our reciprocal responsibilities in the relationship are underlies all we will discuss in this study. What the quality of our response is to "Follow me" will be discussed in the next chapter.

"Disciple" is not a label for those associated with Jesus, nor is it a role for those following him. A disciple responds to the call to follow the person of Jesus in the unique relationship defined by him. It is this relational context and process which determine who a disciple is. The identity of Jesus' followers is always relationship-specific--specific only to the relationship he defines on his terms. Being his disciple is about relationship, the terms of which make involvement in the relationship primary and necessitate the importance of the total person (particularly the heart) to engage him in relationship. Identity formation is a function of this relationship only and not based on what his followers do. Our authentic identity is rooted in our relationship with Jesus, in our direct connection to him relationally, in our intimate involvement with him, not indirectly through activities, deeds or beliefs.

This identity makes it inadequate to define or limit discipleship to following the model demonstrated by Jesus and conforming to his character in our lives. Discipleship is only about his relational imperative to "Follow me" and is rooted in this intimate relational process. Its practice needs to be relationship-specific (person to person) and to have relational significance (heart to heart), that is, develop toward and grow in intimate relational involvement in the relational progression. Anything other than this is a substitute, and only pursuing relationship with Jesus on our terms.
 

How does this definition of discipleship compare to or contrast with discipleship as you have
known it?

What changes are necessary to formulate (or reformulate) discipleship in this relational framework?