There are two ways of thinking about a time frame. I have been thinking about this question for some time: “Is the earlier the better, or is the latter the better?” In the same way, we might ask, “Does more training produce more commitment, or does less training sometimes produce greater commitment?”
These are interesting questions, but in some sense, they are also very meaningful. Let’s talk about training in relation to commitment.
Does longer training necessarily produce greater commitment? No, I don’t think so, especially in this busy and information-rich era.
Let me share something about the Korean church. As you know, Korean Christianity has a history of a little more than a century. In the early stages, churches needed revival meetings. Soon afterward came Bible study, because many congregations did not yet know the Bible well. Later, churches adopted discipleship training, often following a three-year process. Then the paradigm shifted toward missional church movements, many of which were designed to be completed in a shorter period. Around the 1990s, many kinds of para-church ministries were also imported into Korean churches.
Our ministry, LPM/PACE, began during this period, when many new ministry paradigms were emerging.
Now, however, I believe Korean churches are at a crossroads because they have already done almost everything they thought they needed to do. Yet many churches still follow the old three-year discipleship-making paradigm. Some pastors continue to assume, “The more training, the more commitment.”
But there is a problem. Congregations cannot remain in the hangar for three years. They have already learned a great deal. They know something about the Bible, ministry, and discipleship, and they are ready to do something with what they have learned.
Yet in many traditional churches, pastors continue to follow the old pattern: more training, more commitment.
After completing three years of discipleship training, however, some people do not remain in their home churches. Instead, they leave and look for another church or ministry where they can use the knowledge and skills they have acquired.
Of course, they may need more training. But perhaps what they need now is not more basic training. What they urgently need is to be equipped to take off and fly.
Training should not become a hangar where people remain indefinitely. The purpose of training is not simply to keep people learning; it is to prepare them for ministry.
Perhaps, then, the better question is not, “How much training do they need?” but rather, “When are they ready to fly?”
We need to know when to stop training and start releasing people into ministry. Sometimes, the latter is better than the earlier—not because training is unimportant, but because training has a purpose.
The goal is not to produce people who are permanently trained.
The goal is to equip people who are ready to take off and fly.