It is the obligation of the church to teach the whole will of God (Acts 20:27; Matthew 28:20). Now some (though by no means all) parachurch organizations deal with only part of God's teaching on the ground that they are not the church. However, the traditional church organizations have often divided over minor issues (1 Corinthians 1:10-17; Philippians 2:1-4). It is understandable why some would want to avoid getting involved in these questionable disputes. But the solution is not to ignore them, but to ask what things are essential from Scripture. Now there may be a place for groups with differing beliefs to work together for a specific purpose. But this should not be done if it prevents the preaching of truth.
An issue that is commonly evaded is the issue of the sacraments. Again, this is not surprising, as there are many debates here over details. But the ordinances are commanded by God (Matthew 28:18-20; 1 Corinthians 11:23-26), and on analogy with the Old Testament ordinances are the signs and seals of faith (Romans 4:11). Minimizing these seems questionable. However, while there are real issues here, the traditional church organizations have not only become caught up in detail. They have also also sometimes made an issue of who administers the sacraments, something that Scripture never addresses, though it makes sense they should not be performed in conjunction with unbelievers (2 Corinthians 6:14-18).
I am convinced that Scripture does not command a specific form of church government (Deuteronomy 4:2), but there are principles. Parachurch organizations can sometimes put unqualified people in leadership (1 Timothy 3:6) and can take a highly individualistic approach to ministry (Romans 12:4,5). But traditional church organizations can limit leadership to the older members (1 Timothy 4:12) and can see only a few people involved in the work of the ministry (Ephesians 4:16).
I have some sympathy with both sides of this dispute. But both sides are Christ's church, and the ideal is for them to come together as that church. But this is not an easy thing to accomplish. Until we do, I think both sides of the debate have useful things to contribute. But we should work to find ways to reintegrate the parts of Christ's body into one church.
Are you thinking about schools, missionary organizations, homeless shelters and food pantries or something else Mike?
ReplyDeleteOne of my hesitations on writing this post is that parachurch has come to mean so many different things. Sometimes (and I suspect that this is the case with most of the organizations you have mentioned) it is simply the church carrying out specific functions. But there are organizations that fit the description I have given and want to selectively carry out certain parts of the function of the church while choosing to neglect others on the grounds they are not a church. I could name names but I do not want to single people out and perhaps encourage others to throw what I have to say over their shoulder. But while I do not want to simplistically label parachurch organizations as bad (even the specific ones I have in mind here), I do think there is a problem that exists.
ReplyDeleteNot tracking with you Mike. Don't really need to name names just tell me the functions that these groups perform.
ReplyDeletePart of my problem is I am not sure how familiar you are with them. If you have never met the thing I am describing this post may not be very relevant. The one I am most familiar with began by ministering to college students but other similar groups have started in other venues. They emphasize evangelism (which is good) and discipleship (which is good) but want to avoid dealing with much of the controversial stuff denominations divide over on the grounds it is the local churches job to deal with this and not theirs. I do not want to put down these organizations as I think they do do a lot of good, but I have problems with the approach. I do not know how to further describe them other then to name names, but if you are unfamiliar with them that may not help either.
ReplyDeleteI am okay with para-church groups that have a unique focus and mission. In some sense I wish that churches did not feel they had to have their "own" (poorly run) versions of these things. Many of them do it (Sunday School and Youth Ministry for example) because parents demand it so that they can worship without their kids. (Just my opinion).
ReplyDeleteFor me I am a huge believer in, and supporter of, our downtown food pantries and missions that feed and house the homeless and the poor. Generally speaking I wish that more dollars went to them instead of to wealthy suburban pastors and their buildings.
I guess it all depends on what we mean by the local church. In my thinking the local church is not represented by one group but by many who comprise Christ's body in a region.
Here endeth the rant. :)
I am not sure I would disagree with what you have said. I definitely agree with a broader definition of the church (see post). It is just hard to know exactly what words to use to describe such things: traditional church organization, local congregation to avoid the traditional confusion of the church organization with the church. Beyond that I am not sure we are even talking about the same thing and that may be putting us at cross purposes. I am still not sure whether you are familiar with the type of organization I am describing.
ReplyDelete