As was said in an earlier post, there is a nasty tendency for parachurch organizations to cut themselves off from the church and attempt to function as a separate entity. Since these organizations are not coming out from the local church and aren't really working alongside the church, i would say they shouldn't be called parachurch in the true sense of the word.
But first things first. I've been asked for a more clear definition of what constitutes a local church and what constitutes a parachurch.
For starters, read this sermon by John Piper for some more insight. I think he makes some good points. A local church is comprised of Christians who have appointed leadership. Those leaders guard the church and the ministries of the church. They also administer the sacraments and work with other means of grace such as fellowship and teaching of the Word.
Those are not functions of a parachurch. Parachurch ministries work within the auspices of a local church, but are specialized to do a specific task. The specific task of our organization is to engage the campus we work on with the gospel of Jesus Christ. We do our minsitry among non-Christians, while the church is comprised of Christians. Our ministry is guarded by the local church, and the church works through us to reach the campus with the gospel. If the local church can say "Yes, we are doing evangelism on campus and we are doing it through InterVarsity Christian Fellowship," i feel like i'm doing my job.
Our Christian students are church members who have a mission field on campus, just like other church members have a mission field at work or in their neighborhood. It's not too different. These students are part of the ongoing ministry of the church and are encouraged to be in discipleship relationships, attend small groups, Sunday school, and other church activities like any other member. The difference is, we've taken on the task of training and encouraging these students to make the most of their opportunity to share the light of the gospel.
What about parachurch orgs who don't come out from and work alongside the church? I would call them "amputated ministries." If ministries make an effort not to work within the realm of the local church i have lots of questions, but i'll save it for another day. My guess is someone will bring it up in a comment!
Here's a question: Are publishers, seminaries, Christian schools and web/radio ministries parachurch ministries? If so, how do we understand the validity of some of my favorite ministries like Crossway books, Monergism.com, and seminary?
ReplyDeleteAnonymous,
ReplyDeleteSarcasm certainly has its place in this blog... but it has to be somewhat helpful to the explanation of your point and make sense to the wider audience if you’re going to use it. Also I have less patience for strong, zealous, (sometimes condemning and dogmatic?) statements when made from anonymity. Feel free to maintain both sarcasm and anonymity, but use discretion in how you make your points. You risk nothing – the rest of us are vested in this topic.
That said, I appreciate your zeal - and I do share some of your concerns, despite serving within a para-church myself. But I'd like you to answer the question from before: What do you say of other para-church organizations' legitimacy? Homeschool networks, Christian radio, Christian schools, seminaries, missions agencies (even church planting ones), denominations, conferences, teaching ministries (operating alongside the church) Christian websites, Relief organizations operated with gospel aim, etc.
Also I'd like to know how Phillip's interaction with the Ethiopian Eunuch can be understood any other way than as gospel ministry which did not plant a church (or even seek to establish the convert into a church), did not observe any offices or ordinary function of an established local congregation. Phillip preached the gospel, the Eunuch became a follower; Phillip baptized him and left. No one sent him there or commissioned him from within the church for that. The Spirit sent him there.
A good answer to that should be "Yes, but he WAS commissioned by his church to preach the gospel!" Amen to that. But, so am I. So is every Para-church servant who goes to any church worth its salt (pun). ALL people who are a part of the local church should be called and commissioned to preach the gospel to EVERYONE. A para-church comprised of saints who seek to serve local churches (the rub with Elsa I think) are operating closer to what you’d like (perhaps) than even Phillip’s interaction with the Eunuch.
See, I’m beginning to think you have a beef with Campus ministries, not para-churches in every form they are found. I just want some clarification… are you opposed to ALL para-church activity, or just the ones you don’t like or use? It will be helpful to know going forward if you are an equal opportunity de-legitimizer or more of an ala carte type.
It seems as though the deeper issue involved in this discussion is somewhat akin to what is involved in the so-called "regulative principle of worship" versus the "normative principle." In the regulative principle, only those things expressly commanded or commended by example in Scripture ought to characterize the church. Contra this is the normative view that allows for what is not expressly forbidden. Now, this mainly applies to worship in the church (and perhaps government), but the same issue is at stake with this church/para-church discussion in that some see that since the Bible does not expressly command para-church ministries (and so far the citations given on this blog for examples in Scripture seem inconclusive) they are invalid. On the other hand, some see that since they are not prohibited (one would have to search deep for hard evidence to suggest they are) and can be helpful, then all is well as long as certain strictures are in place (many of which Andy and Ole have articulated).
ReplyDeleteFor this discussion to not reach stalemate, perhaps these issues could be addressed.
I find sarcasm to be a very efficient tool in communicating a message and pointing out cracks in a foundation as far as debates go. However, I agree with you that if it isn’t carefully communicated for the advancement of the discussion than it will do more harm than good. I will take that to heart going forward.
ReplyDeleteI choose anonymity for convenience, as oppose to setting up an account, rather than a means of disguise. Nevertheless, I did set up an account. . I hope you consider me now vested in this topic. It still seems that we are all still somewhat shrouded in this post as we only know each other’s names
Now, that aside, I will move to try and address the question and points you raised.
Calling a parachurch organization by a different name does not change my point of view. However, I would not consider everything you listed as parachurch organizations. I classify a parachurch organization as an organization working outside of the Church and assuming responsibilities solely given to her. Those responsibilities include preaching the Gospel, administering the sacraments (Lord’s Supper and Baptism), and implementing discipline within her members. If any entirely new organization is established that assumes the role of any of those I would call it unbiblical. Why do we need to financial establish another organization to assume the role of preaching the Gospel when her members should already be doing that for free? Now, if you say that the Church in a particular area is not assuming her role in reaching individuals in the local area, then I’d say you have a bigger problem on your hands and should seek to first establish a true Church there, or try and correct the Church there, as opposed to bypassing her and going straight for the unconverted souls in that area. I think your focus should be the local Church body if she if failing somewhere. For example, let’s say you find a ripe field for harvest (or niche) and let’s say there are several local Churches in the area that you say are falling short in her evangelical responsibilities. Now you bypass the local Church and establish an organization to go directly for the souls in that area and a multitude truly become converted. When you leave, you have left those souls to Churches that have already proven themselves to be incompetent in her duties or worse are not even true Churches. You can easily see how short term gains are diminished by long term problems. You witness a multitude of people come to know Christ and they have no place to go be fed the Word. Now, I guess you could do that, but then you assume more responsibility that was left to the Church. To directly answer your question, I don’t have a problem with home schools, or seminaries, or relief aid, or anything else you listed so as long as they don’t assume the responsibilities left to the Church. I can’t paint a broad brush stroke over all those organizations without first examining each one closer.
Fielding
Aka anonymous
Can someone tell me why my posts keep disappearing after I post them? I have tried to respond to the points/questions raised my Luke but the posts keep vanishing.
ReplyDeleteFielding
aka anonymous
Fielding... I will post your comments via my account, and try to figure out what in the world is happening with your comments.
ReplyDeleteFielding,
ReplyDelete"If indeed all believers are part of the body of Christ, then the very fact that an individual would go outside of the Church, or Christ, for help seems very ironic. To me, it is a self damning or condemning move. It is like a confirmation of one's own inadequacy, inability, or weakness."
"I would never go as far and condemn anyone for working or serving under them. I still appreciate the work they do for His Kingdom"
???
I think that was a poor word choice on my behalf. I thoughtI clarified myself in an earlier post where I said the following:
ReplyDelete"First, let me clarify one point that you touched on. By using the word self damning or condemning I do NOT mean in regards to the eternal state of one's soul. What I meant to express was more along the lines of self awareness, confession of an inability, or acknowledgement."
Hope this helps. I apologize for the poor word choice.
Also, i think Ole fixed the glitch that was hindering your posting. Sorry about that, let us know if it happens again!
ReplyDeleteAnd i want to say that i really do agree with you on the delegitemization of organizations that do ministry outside the authority of the local church. You and i have different definitions of a parachurch, as my definition depends upon a ministry being a ministry of the local church, while your definition depends upon a ministry having cut ties with the church. I'm fine with your understanding, and much of what you are saying is what i want to say about parachurch orgs as well.
Luke,
ReplyDeleteDo you have the other post?
What I have up is what I was able to find and spring from blog-spam jail... not sure why the blog ate your posts. Hopefully thats fixed now. If you have other posts that didn't make it up... they are lost. Sorry about that.
ReplyDeleteNo worries, I saved both of them to my computer.
ReplyDeleteI just tried to re post the first one and I think it spam filter ate it again.
You absolutely cannot draw a parallel between your ministry and that of Phillip’s or any other Apostle for that matter! This office posses a unique authority and played a special role of laying the foundation of the Church. The special authority and temporary nature of the apostolic office can be identified several marks. The apostles were chosen and designated by Christ himself. To be an apostle, one had to be an eye witness of the resurrected Christ and have been a disciple taught by Christ himself. Paul is not exception to this qualification. Paul said in Galatians 1:12, “I did not receive it (the Gospel) from any man, nor was I taught it; rather I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ.” In addition, the apostles had a special authority that was given them directly from Christ. Charles Hodge writes that the apostles were the infallible and authoritative messengers of Christ. Also, the apostles carried with them the ability to perform miraculous signs to confirm the apostleship and calling. In addition to that, the Apostles had the authority to baptize converts and give commandments to the very Churches that he established. One of the last marks of an apostle are the divinely inspired accounts they left of their lives and the life of Christ himself. I think we should be very cautious when comparing ourselves or our ministries to theirs! Every Apostle was sent by Christ himself, the Head of the Church.
ReplyDeleteWhen it comes to parachurch organizations I am an equal opportunity delegitmizer (I like your word choice!). I haven’t had any personal relationship with any parachurch organization outside of campus ministries. I don’t use or support any of them. However, I would never go as far and condemn anyone for working or serving under them. I still appreciate the work they do for His Kingdom, it is just my wish that they do under the authority of the Church only.
Just as I am not selective in the parachurch organizations that I support, I don’t think you can be selective in the functions of the apostolic office that you are seeking to mimic. I don’t think you can subjectively choose what you like about the apostolic office and choose to parallel it and reject other functions. Under what basis do you make that decision? I don’t think you can omit some and reject others without doing great harm to the original office. If you are going impersonate the Apostles then you should wholly impersonate them. In what other respects can you say you are imitating them? Where are your miracles? And have you seen the risen Lord?
Luke, please explain the rub you think that I am having. ( "A para-church comprised of saints who seek to serve local churches (the rub with Elsa I think) are operating closer to what you’d like (perhaps) than even Phillip’s interaction with the Eunuch.") I'm confused. Thanks!
ReplyDeleteElsa,
ReplyDeleteMy thought is that you may not agree with my premise of para-church operation: The best para-church work (maybe the only legitimate?) is the work which seeks to build local churches (it goes without saying that to build the local church IS to build THE CHURCH).
That statement is constricting and I assume (maybe incorrectly?) that it is too narrow for your aforementioned views on church/para-church. I assumed from your previous statements that you do not observe the differences (or would say "what differences?") between the two.
It can seem that as long as the goals of the church and the para-church are the same, and the people who make them up are the same, that the two are the same... but I do not think so, and I think the one is subject to the other. My hope is that we can rightly identify how they are different and then discuss how the para-church CAN serve the local church without compromising it's own integrity - since there are unique characteristics para-churches have which DO make it a BETTER option in some contexts for the gospel (the rub with Fielding, I suppose.)
I hope that clarifies... if not, it would be a great opportunity for you to flesh out further what your thoughts are on the differences and similarities and how important they are... :)
Also I DO intend to answer Fielding's comments... I just need to catch up on some much needed rest, lest I say something silly that I have to delete later. Sometimes I do that...
Ole, I think you are correct that my desire/need for drawing thick lines and boundary markers between church and parachurch is low. What is even lower is my desire to plot it all out on a blog. There are too many nuances that are lost in this type of communication. If we ever get together for a drafty, cold beverage, then I'd love to chat about all of this.
ReplyDeleteAaron, I think your point is right on in that the underlying issue is the "regulative principle of worship" versus the "normative principle."
ReplyDelete