After reviewing and offering a critical evaluation of the main interpretations of the sayings in Mark 9.43–7, the paper proposes a new reading that considers them in the Jewish context and in their co-text (Mark 9.33–50). The context is the marginal condition in which physically impaired people lived in Jewish society and communities. In view of this context, it is possible to point out the consistency of Jesus’ logia on self-maiming in order to enter the kingdom of God (Mark 9.43–7) with their co-text. The disciples are urged not only not to scandalise the little ones of the community (Mark 9.42), but also to share their minority state, thus avoiding stumbling in their own discipleship because of claims of greatness and superiority.

This essay explores the corporate and social dimensions of discipleship by examining the theological vision of the Parish Communion movement of the last century. It outlines what the Parish Communion movement sought to achieve liturgically and how that was undergirded by its underlying ecclesiology. Elements of the theology underpinning the movement are examined, including its corporate Body theology and its social theology. How these themes contribute to contemporary elaborations of discipleship are then explored, including a reflection on the legacy of the movement in the context of the Covid-19 pandemic.

Luke 14:26 has commonly been viewed as an example of hyperbole. This article applies modern studies on hyperbole that hold as its principle criteria both a scalar property and an evaluative/expressive function. We apply these criteria, analyzing Luke 14:26 in terms of encoded language, co-text, and context. We argue that hyperbole arises from the choice to use “hate” rather than “love more than” but also that the hyperbolic usage relies on a cause for effect (emotion for emotional response) metonym.1 In terms of language, we show that “hate” has variant meanings that may be different in their degrees of encoding. In terms of co-text, we argue that Luke’s use of “hate” and Matthew’s use of “love more than” are relevantly chosen; in other words, they are suited to and to be interpreted against their co-texts.

The Johannine commandment of love aims not only in an ethical-ecclesial sense at the cohesion in the church, but in a mission-theological sense at the winning of new church members. Jn 15.1–17 explains how the mutual immanence of God, Jesus and his disciples enables his followers to gain new fruit in the sense of new church members through mutual love. This continues the christological-ecclesial interpretation of Jesus’ foot-washing from John 13. The symbolic action illustrates how Jesus’ mission leads to the foundation of a community of disciples as a community of love, which becomes the place where the love of God can be permanently experienced (13.1–20, 34–5). The disciples are commissioned to make love present in the world. They are equal among themselves in their immediacy to Jesus, as members of the community of discipleship. A mission-theological use of the harvest metaphor is already found prominently in John 4.35–8 and 12.24–6 and thus in two texts, each of which describes the mission of the followers in correspondence to the mission of Jesus. The vine metaphor deepens that and how Jesus’ followers are to contribute to the enlargement of the community of followers even after his departure, whereby the pre-Easter community of followers is the model for the post-Easter community.

Matthew's didactic teaching blocks often present the terms of salvation as an uncompromising dichotomy, envisioning either complete loyalty or faithlessness (e.g. 10.37–9; 16.25; 24.13). However, the characters in his narrative sections, especially Peter, nuance this harsh binary to allow for a significant degree of failure. After a brief survey recent works on Matthean soteriology and the use of Peter, it is argued that two features of Peter, when combined, widen the scope of salvation. First, Matthew portrays him as occupying a ‘middle ground’ between complete obedience and absolute failure, with all indications pointing to Peter remaining in that space, as emphasised by the last references to him (27.25; 28.16). Second, this failing Peter will not only be allowed in the kingdom, but will have a position of greatness there, as demonstrated by both Matthew's overall theology of status variation within the kingdom (e.g. 19.28; 20.26–7; 5.19) and his unique Petrine accounts (14.22–33; 16.17–19; 17.24–7). Though the way to salvation is narrow (i.e. 7.14), the character of Peter widens it to allow for more failure than some texts in the didactic sections might initially suggest.

Theological colleges and seminaries across the Anglican Communion are at a crossroads and this essay proposes a reorientation of their life towards serving the intentional discipleship of the whole people of God. This kind of change would affect the culture as well as the content of what they do. For example, their pedagogy could become that of ‘the flipped classroom’, where ordinands engage in an apprenticeship style of learning, with their time in college falling within placement learning and providing constructive theological reflection upon that prior learning. This will bring great benefits to these institutions through their becoming re-connected and re-embedded in the life of the church at grass roots level, giving them a valued and indispensable role in the mission of the church in diverse contexts.

Aquinas and Barth both describe the Christian life in light of who God is and how God acts, rather than with a primary concern for morality or apologetics. They differ in that Aquinas describes a single, essentially monastic, and normative form of discipleship that, because it cannot be taken up by most Christians, issues in practice in a two-tier conception of the Christian life. By contrast, Barth's account of vocation individualises the call to each Christian so that it is possible for everyone to lead the Christian life equally well yet in very diverse ways. For this reason, and because our true relation to God is hidden, even to ourselves, we may conclude that it is dangerous to make negative judgement as to anyone's standing before God – and therefore their relative standing in the church, too – based upon a view of the normative form of the Christian life.

The paper offers an alternative to the prevailing “discipleship” model of the Christian life that requires self-transformation, considerable effort and self-sacrifice, and tends to make negative judgements against those who fail to live according to the model. The model is illustrated by the example of Thomas Aquinas. A second, complementary model is drawn from the role of the crowds, who followed Jesus in the Gospels. With the help of Karl Barth's account of vocation, the second model makes it possible for the church to consider those who, for certain reasons, do not live in accord with the discipleship model to be considered good Christians, rather than unsatisfactory ones.

Dietrich Bonhoeffer's liberal use of spatial concepts in constructing an ecclesiology served his theological purpose in the articulation of a concrete ecclesiology. In particular, Bonhoeffer uses the themes of taking-up-space and the visibility of the church. The visibility of the church is depicted as a proclamatory space, a liturgical space and an ordered space, all encapsulated in the concept of Lebensraum. Within this space, witness is given to the foundation of all reality in Jesus Christ. The church is the place where this reality is proclaimed; a space no bigger than that required to serve the world in witness to Christ. As opposed to any idea of a ‘privatised’ or individual space, Bonhoeffer insisted on the public and territorial nature of this space as essential to the church's witness, for it was in this very visibility that the church gains space for Christ.

Lebensraum, an idea popularised by Adolf Hitler and incorporated into the foreign policy of the Third Reich, was a highly charged political concept taken over by Bonhoeffer to represent a living space diametrically opposed in form to that proposed by the Reich. A useful way of thinking about the Christian form of Lebensraum as proposed by Bonhoeffer is to regard it as the space in which the ‘social acts that constitute the community of love and that disclose in more detail the structure and nature of the Christian church’1 are to be demonstrated and observed. These ‘social acts’ are built upon the foundational concepts, first found in Sanctorum Communio, of Stellvertretung or vicarious representative action, Miteinander or church members being with-each-other, and Füreinander or church members actively being for-each-other. Bonhoeffer proposes that, as its life is lived out in this way, the church will take the form of its suffering servant Lord. It is in this particular space and no other, grounded and upright in Christ, that Christians are to live their lives in witness to Christ.