Well, my blogging friend has asked me to draw first blood. The two topics he's chosen are the two most important to my vocational mission and are very near and dear to me, but the topic that most people really honed in on in my last blog was church/parachurch relationships. This topic is a bit touchy, though it has been beated to death in the past few years.
I won't hold my cards too closely here since you've probably read half the stuff off the old blog: Ole and i work for a parachurch ministry. I struggled with parachurch ministry for a while, even while working for one, until a conversation with John Piper made me start rethinking parachurch structure.
I think the model for parachurch ministry we have working in our organization is a good one, though we are still learning.
There is a nasty tendency for parachurch organizations to attempt to function outside of the auspices and authority of the local church. Even in my own organization this runs rampant, and too often ministries attempt to be a separate entity from the church. This in effect stops being a true parachurch and starts being something else. The Greek work para means "out from" or "alongside." I think it is significant to note that a parachurch must be serving alongside the church or it becomes something other than a parachurch. For me, I place all of my personal ministry under the authority of the elders in my church and i am accountable to them. We also have requirements for our leaders regarding local church involvement. One of my greatest tasks in ministry is to get students into local churches and discipleship relationships in those churches.
With good working relationships with the local church, we get to focus our ministry on being a missional branch of the local church, engaging the campus with the gospel of Jesus Christ. Along the way, i've spent an awful lot of time making the church take on the role of making disciples and teaching college-age students. Students involved in our ministry have an incredibly high rate of local church involvement after college because of the values and love for the local church instilled in them in our minsitry.
The title of this post is that the church needs the parachurch. This comes from a realization that, for example, the apostle Paul's missionary journeys, church small groups, prayer meetings, and outreach events are all parachurch ministries. John Frame goes so far as to say that each congregation is in fact a parachurch ministry if we have a right understanding of the Church. When we try to separate church/parachurch and pretend we can have a ministry that is a separate entity from the local church we get into trouble. For me, the parachurch is the most strategic place i can be in order to serve the local church and the universal Church. I love the local church, so i work in the parachurch. Who agrees? Disagrees? Do you think in a perfect world we wouldn't have the parachurch? How can we work on better church/parachurch relationships?
I have a comment/question if no one else does... I hear it said (way too frequently, sadly) that "the para-church exists because the local church has dropped the ball" or some other variation of that phrase... How do YOU respond to that question? Does our ministry exist because the church failed, or is there some other explanation for why our ministry exists? Also... Where are the examples of para-church organizations prior to the last 100 years? (These are leading questions... low floaters over the plate... have fun).
ReplyDeleteI would also be very interested in an answer to that first question, Andy. I've got my own idea for an answer, but I'm fairly new to the para-church system, it would be nice to hear it from some grizzled vets..
ReplyDeleteWell, that's actually the question that made me write the entire post! But you need more of an answer, eh? It's basically a bunch of balogna that the parachurch wouldn't exist in a perfect world. Examples of parachurch would be any missionary with a sending church, Women's conferences (well, some of them anyway), Sunday school classes, discipleship/moentoring, John Calvin's lectures every morning, Martin Luther's tabletalk, seminaries, and the Apostle Paul's missionary journeys.
ReplyDeleteFor me, the local churches in our town say "Yes, we are reaching the campus, and we are doing it through InterVarsity Christian Fellowship." That's a parachurch; an extension of the local church with a specific goal. I DO think there are a plethora of bad examples, however. Any "parachurch" that attempts to function as a separate entity from the local church wouldn't exist in a perfect ecclesiastical world. But without true parachurches, most of the actual ministry of the church wouldn't happen. My argument is that we just need parachurches rather than "pelekizo(beheaded from)churches."
Amen Andy. Thanks for the post.
ReplyDeleteWell, SOMEBODY'S gotta have some beef with what i was saying. Seriously, if i had a nickel for every time i had a church tell me "we don't support parachurch organizations" i'd have a handful of nickels. Anyone willing to speak up? Or at least play devil's advocate?
ReplyDeleteI don't know if I have any disagreement with what you wrote but, for the sake of conversation about perhaps controversy, I'll ask, "what constitutes the local church?" In these discussions, I am never quite sure what criteria people are using to describe what is and what isn't a church. So Andy, whatcha got?
ReplyDeleteI hate to always be so negative but here goes anyway ... {1} I see nothing in the Scriptures about para-church organizations and the support thereof. Of course, that is to be expected since there were no such organizations in the first century. My understanding is that the only God-ordained human instrument for the furtherance of His Kingdom on earth is the Church {of course, made up of individual saints}. By their very nature, para-church organizations are not under the oversight of the church and are therefore free to do whatever they please, including that which is contrary to the Word of God. In practice, such organizations bleed off funds which should be used by the church for doing what God has called her to do. Of course, as some would argue, that since the "church" is in such a mess and is not doing what God has called her to do that justifies these para-church organizations. That is a pragmatic argument and, like most pragmatic arguments, is simply a way of getting around the teaching of the Word of God.
ReplyDeleteExtreme sarcasm alert.
Since the divorce rate is higher among Christians than non Christians, we should create an organization outside the church to wed and counsel couples in this sacred institution.
Una and Annonymous, thanks for your posts! It's 4 am and i have to finish my quiet time and go to breakfast but i want to respond to both of you today. For a start- Really? Christians have a higher divorce rate than everyone else? I agree that we are messy and aren't perfect (just like everybody else) but it takes some serious statistical gymnastics to make that stick. Sounds like an ad hominem to me, but i appreciate your other thoughts and am looking forward to discussing them!
ReplyDeleteActually, I have read conflicting reports about the divorce rate. Some say higher and some say lower. The point I was trying to make was one of a paragmatic nature using a different analogy.
ReplyDeleteNow THIS is more of what i was hoping to get into! I want to say that i appreciate your thoughts and want to learn from you. If we can have healthy discussions and learn from one another this will be a lot of fun, and i'm always willing to change my viewpoint when new info comes to light.
ReplyDeleteUna, you ask what a local church is. Great question! I can't do justice to the topic here, but it is both a physical and a spiritual essence. The local church is a congregation that is part of the Bride of Christ, something Jesus instituted to carry out His Kingdom work. Local churches are governed by leaders who administer the sacraments and carry out acts of love and discipline. I am trying to find a good article i once read about this but can't right now. Ole can fill in some of my missing spots here, this is just a start.
Anonymous, I hear where you are going with this i think and appreciate a bit of apprehension. I know your Biblical argument is not that the term "parachurch" doesn't show up in the Bible, but i would suggest that the idea is very much present. From Paul's missionary journeys to the church's systmetized care of widows and the poor, parachurch ministries abound in the early church as recorded in scripture.
I understand that there is a tendency for parachurch ministries to attempt to detach themselves from the body and crawl away, but that's why we need to work on healthy models for this. If I have a highly skilled and trained campus minister in my church and i live in a college town and my church wants to reach the campus, doesn't it make sense to send them there? And if my church can make them a full time campus minister who brings in scores of college students to the church without having to foot the entire bill doesn't that make sense? I do not buy the argument that the church is in such a mess that parachurches are a necessary evil. The church isn't in that bad of a spot (with our God, who needs to be hopeless?) and parachurches aren't filling in where the church is lacking. Parachurches are a specialized ministry of the church, and the leaders of parachurches ought to be under the authority of their local churches.
I know this is just scratching the surface, so let's keep talking.
You are drawing a parallel between your ministry and Paul's ministry to Asia minor. On what basis do you draw this parallel? The thing to note is that those letters were to local churches Paul had planted on his journeys .... churches which were helping Paul financially. Paul was called to the work by Christ Himself ... sent out on his specific journeys by the Church @ Antioch and supported by his tent-making and by a few gifts from individual local churches. Every organization involved in Paul's work was a church. Where in any of this is a para-church {outside the church} organization? There was none! As far as Paul being accountable .... he was accountable to the One who sent him .... Christ. I still see nothing in the Scriptires about para-church organizations or the support thereof.
ReplyDeleteAnother thing that I am having trouble with in this parallel that you are drawing is that Paul was an ordained minister set apart by the Head of the Church, Christ Himself. Paul was set apart to preach the Gospel, baptize converts, administer the sacraments, discipline believers, and establish Churches. Parachurch members cannot do any of the aforementioned.
However, I do agree with your comments regarding the shape and current state of the Church.
Andy- I agree with the validity of parachurch ministries, without a doubt. And, of course, a hearty "Yes!" to the concern of decapitated parachurch ministries.
ReplyDeleteWithout knowing Frame's argument (though I could perhaps guess at what he is getting at) I do not want to say too much, but it does concern me somewhat the blurring of the lines of church/parachurch presented in your original post as well as your last one. Do we really want to say that Paul's missionary journey's were "parachurch"? Was he not sent out by Antioch and therefore engaged in CHURCH ministry (cf. Acts 13:1-3)? The same goes for the care of the widows. Paul explicitly tells Timothy that "if any woman who is a believer has dependent widows, she must assist them and THE CHURCH must not be burdened, so that it may assist those who are widows indeed" (emphasis mine). These passages seem to suggest that these were church ministries. I think we still need to work on a clear definition for parachurch.
grace and peace
*journeys
ReplyDeleteAnonymous, I appreciate being challenged by your position. And I'm curious, would you would be willing to outline a model for effective campus ministry which could be executed by the church itself?
ReplyDeletePaul said himself "I was not sent to baptize, but to preach the gospel." He did some of that, yes, but Mark Dever points out that it is tough to find a pastor who is not heading a parachurch ministry. From writing books to orphanages to seminaries to website ministries, many pastors (who are sent by God to administer the sacraments and start churches) are also leading parachurch ministries.
ReplyDeleteI think a lot of our bias against parachurch ministries is because we have had too many poor examples and bad experiences. Maybe we should do away with the term "parachurch." What i mean by a parachurch IS a ministry of the church. The local church i work with feels like it is reaching the campus with the gospe, and they are doing it through my ministry. Similarly, the local church i work with feels like it has a small group ministry and they are doing it through a small group that i lead. (actually, through 2 small groups which Ole and i lead).
Aaronn, agreed brother. I'm putting a new post up today that will hopefully further discussion on this topic.
Thanks everyone for the comments, this is helpful.
Anon,
ReplyDeleteI'm really glad you're participating in this post. I share some of the same concerns as you do - but I think have come to some different conclusions. I hope I can make it clear why that is:
First, whether or not we agree that what Paul was doing as he traveled around between churches (he baptized very seldom - and had no problem seeing his ministry as a part of a greater whole) was para in nature or not, we don't HAVE to conclude that their existence today is a "necessary evil" which would in a perfect world, not exist. Could we say that of ALL "para" ministries we love in the church? Or simply the ones WE don't like... For example: Seminaries, Missions agencies, Awana, VBS, Christian counseling, Christian schools, Campus ministries, Christian camps, and Christian radio are all "para" ministries. These ministries are serving God by serving the church from OUTSIDE the local church with the hope of building up the INSIDE of the local church. As the great commission has grown and budded the saints have, led by God I suspect, crafted entities which are not bound by denominational affiliation to reach a niche group of people efficiently, using people with specific giftings to do it, in order to usher people from outside the church INTO the church.
The truth is, the people we are sent to in the great commission are not in spaces that the whole body can wriggle into without great harm both to the space and to the body. But a hand, or an extension of the body could easy move in and interact with those people. What I'm saying is para church ministries serve as an extension of the local church - when they operate according to biblical pattern. Biblical pattern here means simply that the goal of ALL ministry is to bring people into the kingdom of God through the preaching of the gospel, that they might come under the care and discipleship of the local church - and become worshippers of God in both Spirit and Truth.
However, parachurch folks need to be under the authority of a local church. Notice I did not say that the organizations they belong to have to be, just the people that comprise them. That's an important distinction - we'll talk more about that I'm sure.
In the meantime - I'd like to hear more about your answer to Devin's question...
And I'll let Andy get a more robust (maybe even a WHOLE post) answer to Una's question.
Thanks!
Thanks Ole. Actually, in a perfect world there would be no parachurch ministries because all evangelism and missions is a necessary evil. They exist because worship of God does not, and Christians long for the day when no evangelism and no mission work is necessary.
ReplyDeleteOh, and don't forget Christian homeschooling as a parachurch ministry example, and one that tries to become its own entity without any oversight from the church.
Devin,
ReplyDeleteI think Paul Washer has already set up a good model in the Heart Cry Missionary Society that he founded. That ministry is completely under the oversight of a local church and her elders. Here is a quote from their website:
The HeartCry Missionary Society has recently moved its offices to Christiansburg, Virginia for the purposes of planting a church in the area. As the congregation matures it will take the primary role of holding both its elders and its various ministries accountable in doctrine, ethics, and faithfulness to their stated purpose.1 Since the church plant is in it earliest stages and the congregation is yet unable to fully oversee the administration and ministry of HeartCry, we have purposed to employ a number of supporting churches to assist in both the counsel and oversight of HeartCry
Um, I'm pretty sure that parachurch people can preach the gospel, discipline people, administer the sacraments, etc. I'm not sure that the Bible makes as strong of a distinction between what church leaders and regular Christian people can do, as is inferred in some of the opinions on this blog. As a side note, the care of widows was left over from the Jewish system. It wasn't something that the church came up with and put to the side of the real ministry of the local church. It seems pretty central to the ministry of the church as far as I can tell from Acts 6.
ReplyDeleteThere are other things that "are not in the Bible" that we support all the time without thinking of it - Sunday school, homeschooling, daily quiet times, equating discipleship with reading a book together with someone and discussing it over coffee, VBS, Christian music and, dare I say it, political parties and views.
In a perfect world, we wouldn't have a ga-jillion denominations, church splits, different forms of church polity, etc. There wouldn't be a local church, per se. All this to say, I'm just not sure where the need for what seems like rigorous boundaries/distinctions between church and parachurch comes from. I'm also not sure that talking about what would things be like if things were perfect helps the discussion because things aren't perfect and it's hard to know what actually that would look like. I guess I need some more bible or something to help move me from my position to another one.
Thanks Elsa! I'm seeing a need in this thread to make plain-er what we assume are legitimate divisions between the local and para churches. I'd like very much if you would outline briefly what you think ARE legitimate divisions, if any. Anonymous, if you could do the same I would appreciate it. The reason is - I think you two represent very well two opposing viewpoints that the authors of this blog are attempting to navigate. So having you each explain in your own words what a church is and what a para-church is would be tremendously helpful for our audience and this discussion.
ReplyDeleteI realize I'm asking you two to provide the lion's share of content in this thread - but I assure you... future posts will be more easily crafted with the fodder you provide. Thanks!!!
I think fully articulating what the Church is and what her purpose is would take several pages. I will try and make my point of view as concise as I can.
ReplyDeleteThe Church is an individual collection of saints from all ages and also a collection of individuals meeting at a specific time and place. However, the gathering of the saints on the Lord’s Day is marked by a few characteristics that distinguish it from false ‘churches’ that are always present. I like the way some writers of antiquity identify a true Church body. Calvin wrote that, 'where the word of God was truly preached, and truly heard; and where the sacraments were rightly administered; and where discipline was duly enforced... there was the church. I know the third part goes largely ignored these days. If you were to apply those three filters, there would be few Churches actually standing today. The Church body is also composed of a hierarchy as well. Paul wrote to the Church in Corinth, “And in the church GOD has appointed first of all apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then workers of miracles, also those having gifts of healing, those able to help others, those with gifts of administration, and those speaking in different kinds of tongues. Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Do all work miracles?” Note, the sequence of offices in order of importance by the word choice ‘first’ and ‘second’. On a side note, some of those offices were temporary and ended when the apostolic age ended, such as apostles and speaking in tongues. One very important thing we should take a moment to distinguish is the responsibilities of those that hold those vocations. Christ gave the power of public teaching, baptizing, administrating the Lord’s supper, governing and disciplining unto lawfully called and ordained church officers. If people are to be baptized, preached unto, taught and disciplined they must become a member of a local church. Parachurch ministries do not have the authority to publicly preach, baptize, administer the Lord’s supper or administer church discipline. Do parachurch organizations do many good things for people in society? Yes, they often do. However, they are not founded upon Scripture but upon pragmatism. Historically parachurch groups have weakened the church. Often short term gains are followed by long term problems (e.g., false ecumenicity, heresies, innovations in worship, a lack of respect for the church and church officers, evangelistic gimmicks, pop-psychology, etc.). If the church is not being faithful to her calling then the solution is repentance and revival; not the setting up of parallel rival institutions. The responsibility to disciple the nations rest with the church and no one else. Now to the overriding purpose of the Church. The purpose of the Church seems it would take several pages to fully explain as well. But, at a high level the Church is to do the will of Him that called her and conform to His image. This is what we were made for. If there is anything admirable, if there is anything worthy, it is summed up in Jesus Christ. We exist to conform to His image and commune with Him. There is no other purpose. That purpose is the goal and we obviously face hurdles along the way, namely ourselves. This is our primary purpose and calling. Of course, this is comprised of smaller details. This requires us to labor and strive to fulfill this calling my try to mimic our Saviors life. Of course I am not talking about works righteousness here, but fruit.
Para-church organizations are by definition outside the Church structure. The word para literally means ‘outside.’ Para-church structures do not even have the same missionary goal as Paul and the other Apostles did. Para-church organizations seek to aide the local Church, while Paul and other sought to establish entirely new Churches. Paul was not funded by organizations outside the Church, not did he have an organization to oversee the financial part of his ministry. In addition, Paul did not have an outside the Church organization to hold him accountable. I find the thought that the Church needs something that has not already been provided to her by Christ a bit arrogant. Who’s to say the Church needs help? How can you even objectively quantify that? 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. The very definition of seeking help is a confession of some short coming. But, when you seek to help the very body that you are a part of, what does that really say? Why go outside the Church to seek help when all the help the Church needs is found in Christ? Why do we even think we need para-church organizations? Have we lost all faith in the power of the One who called her and set her apart from before the foundations of the world were even laid?
ReplyDeleteAnyways, that is my two cents...
Thanks annonymous. I'm glad you're posting here, it's definitely helpful. There's a lot to digest in your posts. It sounds like you may have had a bad experience with a parachurch ministry that was doing what i call "playing church" and taking responsibility for preaching the Word, discipleship, and possibly even administering the sacraments. I agree with your definition of a church from a historical perspective and with the role of hierarchy in a church, eveen if i might not agree completely on which offices you picked to be dead in the church today.
ReplyDeleteWhat if the Greek word "para" means "out from" and "alongside" as i have mentioned before rather than "outside of" as you say? "Parable" means to "throw alongside," a story that Jesus used to parallel and AID his points, so why not out of love for the church support her with ministries coming from within the church that aid her mission in the world. Your accusation that parachurches have weakened the church I believe is unfounded. Good parachurches are accountable to the church, work within her structure, and encourage the church in her mission. There is no rivalry or greed, and no lack of faith in the church. This is why i say that it is because I love the church so much that I serve in a parachurch ministry. Those who are part of a parachurch are not damning themsleves, as you say. I do think there are plenty of bad examples, but i still think there is a right way to do it. And that's why this discussion is so important, the issues really do matter. Thanks again for the thoughts.
I agree that discussion is vital on topics such as this. I share your passion for good conversation! Thanks for setting up this blog where we can discuss things of this nature without fear of reapproach for being wrong. This is a good environment to foster good conversation.
ReplyDeleteFirst, let me clarify one point that you touched on. By using the word self damning 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.
Yes, some parachurch organizations have left a very bad taste in my mouth.
The way that I understand your particular ministry, from this post and the new one you started,it sounds like you are not a part of a parachurch organization under the defnition that I understand parachurch organizations to be defined. If your ministry is held accountable by a Church and its elders/leaders, then it is not a parachurch organization. A true parachurch organization is held accountable by a structure outside of the Church. This structure contains individuals who work there full-time, draw their salary from the organization, and hold titles like vice president of finance, president, VP of operations, chief of staff, etc.
How the greek translates doesn't change its meaning that it is separate entity, whether it is 'alongside' or 'out from'. Parable is a good example of this. Christ told parables that represent truth without literally explaining it in detail, but rather through a story. But, Christ using parables is not an example of a parachurch organization nor is it an authorization of use.
I find it a bit ironic that the nation with the most parachurch organizations appears to be the most ungodly as well. Other nations view America as one of the new missionary fronts. Food for thought.
Certainly! Thanks anonymous! I think it's an incredibly humbling and eye-opening thing to realize that there are many missionaries coming to America from other countries. We need missionaries! That fact is actually what kept me in the States doing mission work when I was trying to get to Africa. It was tough to deal with the knowledge that there was a higher percentage of evangelical Christians where i was wanting to go for missions than there was on the homefront that I was wanting to leave! But that's for another post...
ReplyDeleteI agree with your thoughts, except i would say that my organization is still a parachurch organization, even though its works under and comes from the local church and is not a rival to the local church. But we can keep discussing that.
Luke, you asked what I consider legitimate divisions between the local church and parachurch. My answer: I guess I don't assume a lot of divisions between the two mostly because I believe that both the local church and parachurch ministries are part of what the whole Church universal is doing in the world. There is a lot in this blog about what church-folk and parachurch-folk can and cannot do. At the risk of sounding simple, I don't see why it's important to distinguish (and elevate) church function from parachurch function. I'm not sure of the benefit as all it is doing is elevating some above the other, which I'm pretty sure is not a good way to go.
ReplyDeleteMy view is informed by Mark 9:38-41 and the surrounding passages.
But, if pushed, I would say that the local church should represent the demographics of the local community while parachurch organizations generally have a niche that is not holistic. Typically, parachurch ministries are focused in their scope.
Sacraments and means of grace seem to be a big deal to some on this post. While I am not one to administer these outside of my local congregation, I don't really have a problem if other folks do it. If I found out that some Christian friends got together, broke some bread, drank some wine & called it communion, I probably wouldn't shake my head in displeasure or disappointment. I believe that normal, average, everyday Christians, who are filled with God's spirit via the regeneration that comes through conversion are members of the royal priesthood written about in 1 Peter 2.
It is important, and vital, to distinguish the Church from parachurch function! Do you have any idea what is at stake here? By not making a distinction you are directly inferring that there is no difference between the bride of the Lamb and any other function and/or organization! The Church has been set apart from everything else to become one with Christ. How can you say that there is no benefit to elevating her above any and every parachurch organization? How can you so blur the lines like that? Have we lost all reverence and respect for the Church that she is just some average run of the mill organization that seeks to do some good for mankind?! Some of you talk about the Church with such language that makes her seem ordinary. Then, you talk about the parachurch organizations like a business model seeking to strategically penetrate some niche market. It seems apparent to me that our attitude of the Church is also showing up in how we view the sacraments. Viewing, and even talking about, the divine sacraments with such mediocrity is appalling. How are we to trust and believe in the awesome power of GOD when we turn His symbols into ordinary everything things and say that ordinary, average, everyday Christians can administer them? What’s next? I guess we can let ordinary, average, everyday Christians can preach, wed couples, and baptize converts. Why we’re at it why not let practicing unrepentant homosexuals do the aforementioned as well? In my opinion, the encroachment on the Holiness of GOD has gone too far. How can we expect the world to view GOD in such awe when we treat Him and His institutions with such mediocrity? Are we not talking about the same GOD in this post? Are we not talking about the GOD at whose presence angles hide their faces and earth tries to hide?
ReplyDeleteThe priesthood mentioned in 1 Peter 2 is not talking about the earthly priesthood that Christ planted.
Quick question: Anonymous, are you Catholic? This knowledge would help going forward, thanks!
ReplyDeleteNo, I am not Catholic by any means.
ReplyDeleteI think equating ordinary, average, everyday Christians (parachurch workers?) preaching, et al to unrepentant homosexuals doing the same is a bit of a stretch and verging on ad hominem-type comparisons.
ReplyDeleteI'm not comparing ordinary everyday Christians, et al, to unrepentant homosexuals. I'm not sure how you drew the inference either. It is the encroachment on the Church and the gifts that were solely given to her that I take issue with. This encroachment comes in several different forms, from who we let preach to how little we esteem her authority and institutions.
ReplyDeleteMy use of homosexuals in the pulpit was a logical extrapolation of what can happen based on the historic eroding of respect for the Church. Is it likely that homosexuals in the pulpit become the mainstream? Who knows? Is it probable? Yes! I was more or less being sarcastic with my example. But I think we should speak harshly on this topic as it deserves, because the Church's reputation is at stake. I hope I clarified my comment. I don't wish to discuss homosexuals in this post because I think it is off topic.
I made the comparison by this statement that you made on 4/23 - "What’s next? I guess we can let ordinary, average, everyday Christians can preach, wed couples, and baptize converts. Why we’re at it why not let practicing unrepentant homosexuals do the aforementioned as well? " Perhaps I misunderstand your statement to compare everyday Christians preaching with unrepentant homosexuals preaching. My bad.
ReplyDeleteLet's move this to the above post........***look up***
ReplyDelete