Para Church Ministries?

[Deleted member 7239]

I will say that I believe no one here did such. I understand you seem to see it as so, but as has been pointed out earlier this is a characterization that is simply not true.



Charity is to be practiced by all the church, and the official proclamation of The Gospel is to be done by TE's as prescribed in scripture.

There have been multiple statements in this thread that would suggest that rather than support any outside Christian organization that meets a valid need and points people to Christ, we should just rely on the official church officers to do this work. I don't believe that all of the needs of the world are the duty of church officers and we can't expect them to meet all needs, and why would a church officer see others pointing the lost to Christ as "competition". No one is advocating for extra-church organizations to administer sacraments, or become a better church alternative. They meet a need that the church isn't directly called to meet.

I think this thread is a dead horse at this point and I do thank you all for providing your interpretation of scripture. Is was very informative and explains a lot. I just hope that when I stand before Christ I hear, "Well done good and faithful servant" as we all do.

 

[Inactiver user19912]

See, I'm not convinced that's true:







I would encourage you to step back and reconsider things more objectively.
I do understand that Harvey demands your attention and I will be praying for you and all those affected. I look forward to hearing from you after the crisis has passed.

Doctor, you asked direct questions about seminaries. I answered those questions with language consistent with someone expressing an opinion. That you cherry-picked my responses to prove a point isn't becoming and is exactly the kind of thing I didn't want to have happen to my words. Think what you'd like, sir. In the end few people convince anyone of anything via the internet.

 

[Inactiver user19912]

It's easy to be rigid and paint with a broad brush with para-church ministries. I just hoped in this thread that maybe some people on this board would see that all Christian organizations outside the church are necessary and good.

The homeless shelter/orphanage aren't "what abouts" they are actual places in your area meeting actual needs that the local church isn't meeting.

Sorry that you have to deal with the "nonsense of surviving mortals".

The quote from Reverend Davies has been my signature long before commenting on this thread. Further, I meant it as Reverend Davies meant it, as an appreciative remark of his library. Please don't violate the Ninth Commandment by ascribing motive to my signature that does not exist. You disagree with me. I'm fine with that and agree that this is a dead horse.

 

[Deleted member 7239]

The quote from Reverend Davies has been my signature long before commenting on this thread. Further, I meant it as Reverend Davies meant it, as an appreciative remark of his library. Please don't violate the Ninth Commandment by ascribing motive to my signature that does not exist. You disagree with me. I'm fine with that and agree that this is a dead horse.

I'm sure we agree on more things than we disagree on. I thank you for enduring my personal nonsense as a member of the surviving mortals.

I can appreciate your position even though I disagree with it. I have been helped greatly personally by para-church organizations over the years and its a bit of a personal insult when reformed people write them off as useless. If reformed people abandon all extra-church organizations how will we reform them? I would hope that we can represent the reformed perspective in these organizations without expecting them to become confessional. I think we should be salt and light in these organizations rather than pretending they aren't being used by God.

 

[Gforce9]

I'm sure we agree on more things than we disagree on. I thank you for enduring my personal nonsense as a member of the surviving mortals.

I can appreciate your position even though I disagree with it. I have been helped greatly personally by para-church organizations over the years and its a bit of a personal insult when reformed people write them off as useless. If reformed people abandon all extra-church organizations how will we reform them? I would hope that we can represent the reformed perspective in these organizations without expecting them to become confessional. I think we should be salt and light in these organizations rather than pretending they aren't being used by God.

Jesse,
This is where I think you have misunderstood the other side....quite significantly. No one has said they are "useless"....but this does strike at the heart of the issue. All the arguments that I have seen in this thread in favor of PCM' s, is only one of pragmatism. It is "good", "helpful", "useful". We don't disagree with such (In many cases), but we have an issue with the premise....that these things should be done because they are pragmatic.....because they "work". The other side says we shouldn't let pragmatism rule our decisions but rather, what God has commanded. A perfect example from recent history: the RPW requires order and simplicity in worship. Pragmatism gave us a dancing men freak show before the Lord's Table in New York.
Pragmatism should not rule the church. Give us a sound ecclesiastical argument.

 

[Deleted member 7239]

Jesse,
This is where I think you have misunderstood the other side....quite significantly. No one has said they are "useless"....but this does strike at the heart of the issue. All the arguments that I have seen in this thread in favor of PCM' s, is only one of pragmatism. It is "good", "helpful", "useful". We don't disagree with such (In many cases), but we have an issue with the premise....that these things should be done because they are pragmatic.....because they "work". The other side says we shouldn't let pragmatism rule our decisions but rather, what God has commanded. A perfect example from recent history: the RPW requires order and simplicity in worship. Pragmatism gave us a dancing men freak show before the Lord's Table in New York.
Pragmatism should not rule the church. Give us a sound ecclesiastical argument.

I agree that pragmatism shouldn't rule the church and we shouldn't try to add to the ordained means of grace. Maybe we all agree on this and are just speaking past each other. There's always underlying issues that inform our point of view. This seems like an ongoing issue, like other issues involving the RPW, that is not going to be resolved today. Without citing specific organizations on a case-by-case basis we can't speak of "the parachurch" as if it were a monolith with a concrete statement of faith. Some would call Ligonier Ministries a parachurch. I'm sure many of us wouldn't be Reformed today without that one. Many other examples could be made, but this thread could never end.

I do appreciate all of who took the time to participate in this thread and I do appreciate your example as mature believers I can aspire to.

 

[RamistThomist]

And no one is saying Ligonier is useless. Further, no one is saying Ligonier wouldn't exist at all today, if our critiques of PCMs stood. Rather, could not Ligonier do good gospel work while being under the aegeis of a local church?

 

[Deleted member 7239]

So is the qualifier that a parachurch must be under the leadership of a local church session?

 

[yeutter]

Some activities of many of the para-Church agencies could properly be but under the authority of a local or regional Church body. Some other activities, like for instance publishing, are not properly ministries but could be done through for not for profit publishing associations.

 

[Stope]

How will they believe unless a preacher is sent? In our culture of today it is common belief that many are saved by their next door neighbor who is a plummer or an ultrasound technician.

Charity is to be practiced by all the church, and the official proclamation of The Gospel is to be done by TE's as prescribed in scripture.

Am I hearing you say that the the "official" Gospel message is only to be shared by "TE's"?

 

[RamistThomist]

So is the qualifier that a parachurch must be under the leadership of a local church session?

Not always. I think what we are saying is that a lot of the dangers that come with parachurch ministries can be mitigated by church oversight. Exceptions exist, of course, think Banner of Truth. But for every Banner of Truth there are ten Gospel Coalitions.

 

[Ben Zartman]

Am I hearing you say that the the "official" Gospel message is only to be shared by "TE's"?

Jason,
If you read all the posts in this thread ( I know it's long), you'll find that this is exactly what he's saying. It gets discussed in detail a page or so up. In essence, it's the notion (taken from Scripture) that it is the duty of preachers, duly vetted and called by the church, to preach the gospel to those to whom they are sent (be it a to local church or sent out as missionaries). It stands in contrast to the modern notion that every believer everywhere has a duty to "share the Gospel" with everyone he meets, and to go out and look for folks to "share the Gospel" with, regardless of gifts and calling.

 

[yeutter]

Not always. I think what we are saying is that a lot of the dangers that come with parachurch ministries can be mitigated by church oversight. Exceptions exist, of course, think Banner of Truth. But for every Banner of Truth there are ten Gospel Coalitions.

Is an publishing a periodical a proper function for a Church?
Organizations that are primarily engaged in evangelism probably be under direct ecclesiastical oversight.
Theological education probably should be under direct ecclesiastical oversight.
Is religious publishing a similar function?

 

[Deleted member 7239]

Jason,
If you read all the posts in this thread ( I know it's long), you'll find that this is exactly what he's saying. It gets discussed in detail a page or so up. In essence, it's the notion (taken from Scripture) that it is the duty of preachers, duly vetted and called by the church, to preach the gospel to those to whom they are sent (be it a to local church or sent out as missionaries). It stands in contrast to the modern notion that every believer everywhere has a duty to "share the Gospel" with everyone he meets, and to go out and look for folks to "share the Gospel" with, regardless of gifts and calling.

Honest question--Is it within the "reformed confessional" view I will call it, that there are those who aren't ordained TE's, but do have gifts and calling to share the gospel?

**I know this is a long thread, but it is a crucial topic and it's worth taking the time to hash out. I've spent most of my life believing the opposite of the confessional view so I appreciate you indulging me.

 

[Ben Zartman]

Honest question--Is it within the "reformed confessional" view I will call it, that there are those who aren't ordained TE's, but do have gifts and calling to share the gospel?

**I know this is a long thread, but it is a crucial topic and it's worth taking the time to hash out. I've spent most of my life believing the opposite of the confessional view so I appreciate you indulging me.

The LBCF in Chapter 26:11 allows for non-elders to preach, so long as they are duly called and vetted by the church. But the formal preaching of the Gospel is not done separately from the church. At my church, anyone who goes to preach outdoors, or at a local nursing home, or has a Bible study in his home first receives the consent and approval of the elders. Some are not given that consent for various reasons.
None of this is to say that you cannot share the Gospel with your neighbor if opportunity arises--it just means that the formal declaration of the Gospel is under the oversight of the Church, and that not everyone need get all bothered if they haven't "led someone to Christ" in the last X amount of time.

 

[earl40]

Honest question--Is it within the "reformed confessional" view I will call it, that there are those who aren't ordained TE's, but do have gifts and calling to share the gospel?

**I know this is a long thread, but it is a crucial topic and it's worth taking the time to hash out. I've spent most of my life believing the opposite of the confessional view so I appreciate you indulging me.

Q. 35. How is the covenant of grace administered under the New Testament?

A. Under the New Testament, when Christ the substance was exhibited, the same covenant of grace was and still is to be administered in the preaching of the Word,[133] and the administration of the sacraments of Baptism[134] and the Lord's Supper;[135] in which grace and salvation are held forth in more fulness, evidence, and efficacy, to all nations.[136]

 

[Deleted member 7239]

Q. 35. How is the covenant of grace administered under the New Testament?

A. Under the New Testament, when Christ the substance was exhibited, the same covenant of grace was and still is to be administered in the preaching of the Word,[133] and the administration of the sacraments of Baptism[134] and the Lord's Supper;[135] in which grace and salvation are held forth in more fulness, evidence, and efficacy, to all nations.[136]

So if preaching is happening in a church building on Sunday mornings, wouldn't that restrict the Gospel from being heard by non-believers?

Non-believers aren't in the habit of driving to church on Sunday mornings. So how do they hear the Gospel?

 

[earl40]

So if preaching is happening in a church building on Sunday mornings, wouldn't that restrict the Gospel from being heard by non-believers?

Non-believers aren't in the habit of driving to church on Sunday mornings. So how do they hear the Gospel?

If they do not have a pastor going out to them, drag them to church (like I did my sons when they were young) where they can hear the full council of God and receive the sacraments.
Of course I am kidding about the "dragging", though I do STRONGLY encourage them to attend a good local congregation.

 

[Deleted member 7239]

If they do not have a pastor going out to them, drag them to church (like I did my sons when they were young) where they can hear the full council of God and receive the sacraments.
Of course I am kidding about the "dragging", though I do STRONGLY encourage them to attend a good local congregation.

So in your view, the way to remain confessional and also reach the lost is to invite them to join us at worship on Sunday?

 

[jwithnell]

Friend, I'm glad you are grappling with this. You're getting sound feedback that the normal way a person hears the gospel is through the preached word, but that we all have a duty to give an answer for the hope that is within us. I also believe this means we should do all we can to make sure our pastors are freed up to study, pray, and preach.

 

[Deleted member 7239]

Friend, I'm glad you are grappling with this. You're getting sound feedback that the normal way a person hears the gospel is through the preached word, but that we all have a duty to give an answer for the hope that is within us. I also believe this means we should do all we can to make sure our pastors are freed up to study, pray, and preach.

I'm sure you believe it is sound advice. But there are many Reformed pastors who would disagree with the position.

The question remains:

If the only person a lost soul can hear the Gospel from is an ordained teaching elder, and they never come to worship on Sunday since they aren't regenerate, how do they hear the message of the Gospel? Are we supposed to invite the lost to come worship with us?

 

[jwithnell]

I would not agree that the only person a lost soul can hear is a preacher. I'd even go on to say that our rich doctrinal heritage can lead to complacency. We should engage the world around us. We should be salt and light in a dying world. We should be ready to explain the hope Christ gives us. If the apoligetics group mentioned earlier equips otherwise church-going students to do so, that's great! (I.e. the students should be active participants in a local church, but if discussions about science and philosophy helps them to be light on campus, great!)

Here in the US, we've had a strange migration of Biblical responsibilities flow from the church to other organizations. The normal spread of the gospel is from the church. The disciplining of believers -- that great commandment of the great commission -- is the responsibility of the church. That means both the ordained and the laity are under authority and accountable to one another under the leadership of Christ, the only head of the church.

As the mainline churches grew weaker in the mid-20th century, I think a lot of young people appreciated the teaching and praise of the para-church organizations. I believe we've had generations of church leadership that came up through these organizations and have a weakened understanding of both the responsibility and authority if the church.

 

[Deleted member 7239]

I would not agree that the only person a lost soul can hear is a preacher. I'd even go on to say that our rich doctrinal heritage can lead to complacency. We should engage the world around us. We should be salt and light in a dying world. We should be ready to explain the hope Christ gives us. If the apoligetics group mentioned earlier equips otherwise church-going students to do so, that's great! (I.e. the students should be active participants in a local church, but if discussions about science and philosophy helps them to be light on campus, great!)

Here in the US, we've had a strange migration of Biblical responsibilities flow from the church to other organizations. The normal spread of the gospel is from the church. The disciplining of believers -- that great commandment of the great commission -- is the responsibility of the church. That means both the ordained and the laity are under authority and accountable to one another under the leadership of Christ, the only head of the church.

As the mainline churches grew weaker in the mid-20th century, I think a lot of young people appreciated the teaching and praise of the para-church organizations. I believe we've had generations of church leadership that came up through these organizations and have a weakened understanding of both the responsibility and authority if the church.

I would agree with everything you say here. I appreciate your thoughts

 

[Joshua]

Jesse,

I appreciate that you want to "get to the bottom of things." I have been silent on latter portion of this thread because -like you- I believe the dead horse to be beaten enough, since Scriptural arguments have not been answered. Ergo, after this post, I have no particular plans to engage any further, unless we can start dealing with the Scriptural arguments, .

I believe Greg made a good point above concerning pragmatism vs Scriptural input. All of theology is not cut and dry obvious. This is, I assert, by design in God's providence (how He has ordered the Scriptures, how we're to interpret Scripture with Scripture, some things are less clear and become more clear by other more explicit passages, etc.). You are throwing around "what ifs," but we must discuss "what has God commanded," including not only the explicit passages put forward, but also all of their implications, applications, relevance to other passages, "the analogy of Scripture," etc. All the "what ifs" in the world may not inform our practice. I, and others, have put forth Scriptural arguments that, while nuanced, have still not been answered by detractors. Instead, we're given answers as to how the church has perceptively failed to take up her duty, ergo, "ministries" outside the church should be supported. We're told that hearts are pained because people question the validity of these "ministries," since the Lord apparently has used them for the salvation of souls. So on, so forth.

What saith the Scriptures? What saith the Lord Jesus Christ, King of the Kingdom, and the Architect not only of its building, but how and through what means it is to be built? What of the passage surrounding -as my dear Pastor has called it- "the great omission of the Great Commission in Matthew 28 (i.e. the who that are sent, the nature of what a disciple is, and what constitutes them as disciples, and the enduring nature of being a disciple)? How 'bout the gifts given to the church for the building of the church in Ephesians 4? What of the Apostle's retrograde clearing of the matter of the way of salvation in Romans 10, wherein he essentially argues that there is no ordinary means of salvation outside of the men calling upon the Lord, and how men cannot call upon in Whom they have not believed, and they cannot believe of Whom they have not heard, and they cannot hear without a preacher, and that a preacher cannot get to them if he is not sent? These all are bound up in authority, order, commission, kingdom work by King's orders, accountability, oversight, so on, so forth. Christ, King of His Kingdom, did not even presume to take up the endeavor of Himself, but went forward by commandment of the Father.

No one is necessarily questioning the intent of these organizations, or even arguing that some good has not come of them; however, we are not the ultimate arbiters or definers of what is good. God alone is, and "He hath shewed thee, O man, what is good; and what doth the Lord require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God," (Micah 6.8). This was in response to, perhaps, well-intended questions in verses prior, Wherewith shall I come before the Lord, and bow myself before the high God?:

1. Shall I come before him with burnt offerings, with calves of a year old?
2. Will the Lord be pleased with thousands of rams, or with ten thousands of rivers of oil?
3. Shall I give my firstborn for my transgression, the fruit of my body for the sin of my soul?
​

"Surely the Lord will be pleased with best and purest of intentions!" it seems he's saying. I will give him my first born! Surely he'll take that?! Yet, the answer was not all the thoughts he had, rather, to do justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with God. That is, justly is bound up in what God says is right, not what we think is right, or good, etc. To love mercy, and to walk humbly, that is, not to take it upon ourselves to do things our way, to "help" the Lord in ways He has not commanded, so on so forth.

Is there a place for humanitarian aid not specifically under the auspices of the church? Of course. No one is arguing against that. May these same places point men to Christ, with a right understanding of what being a disciple means (i.e. that it is bound up in the life of the Visible Church, in all its ordinances, doctrines, etc.)? Absolutely! But we must leave off and eschew that kind of egalitarian, one-off, decisionalistic 'gospel' message that presents not a whole Christ, but just some parts of Him that make it tenable to love Him, but not His kingdom. Further, let not these entities call themselves ministries in the official sense, conflating it with that ministry of reconciliation. They are not the same. There are organizations out there ran by Christians, and we praise the Lord for such things, and we also understand that the Lord can use a crooked stick to draw a straight line. Yet, that does not mean He authorized us to support such things because in His secret providence He has apparently used them. He is free. We are not. He is God. We are not. Let us each, as private Christians, seek to subdue our own callings for Christ, adorning our profession, such that men would see our deeds and praise our Father in heaven. Yet, let us not conflate that with the ministry of Reconciliation and the discipling of the nations, which is uniquely, authoritatively, and officially mandated to the kingdom of God on earth, that is, the Church, of Whom there is no other head, except Jesus Christ.

 

[Deleted member 7239]

Jesse,

I appreciate that you want to "get to the bottom of things." I have been silent on latter portion of this thread because -like you- I believe the dead horse to be beaten enough, since Scriptural arguments have not been answered. Ergo, after this post, I have no particular plans to engage any further, unless we can start dealing with the Scriptural arguments, .

I believe Greg made a good point above concerning pragmatism vs Scriptural input. All of theology is not cut and dry obvious. This is, I assert, by design in God's providence (how He has ordered the Scriptures, how we're to interpret Scripture with Scripture, some things are less clear and become more clear by other more explicit passages, etc.). You are throwing around "what ifs," but we must discuss "what has God commanded," including not only the explicit passages put forward, but also all of their implications, applications, relevance to other passages, "the analogy of Scripture," etc. All the "what ifs" in the world may not inform our practice. I, and others, have put forth Scriptural arguments that, while nuanced, have still not been answered by detractors. Instead, we're given answers as to how the church has perceptively failed to take up her duty, ergo, "ministries" outside the church should be supported. We're told that hearts are pained because people question the validity of these "ministries," since the Lord apparently has used them for the salvation of souls. So on, so forth.

What saith the Scriptures? What saith the Lord Jesus Christ, King of the Kingdom, and the Architect not only of its building, but how and through what means it is to be built? What of the passage surrounding -as my dear Pastor has called it- "the great omission of the Great Commission in Matthew 28 (i.e. the who that are sent, the nature of what a disciple is, and what constitutes them as disciples, and the enduring nature of being a disciple)? How 'bout the gifts given to the church for the building of the church in Ephesians 4? What of the Apostle's retrograde clearing of the matter of the way of salvation in Romans 10, wherein he essentially argues that there is no ordinary means of salvation outside of the men calling upon the Lord, and how men cannot call upon in Whom they have not believed, and they cannot believe of Whom they have not heard, and they cannot hear without a preacher, and that a preacher cannot get to them if he is not sent? These all are bound up in authority, order, commission, kingdom work by King's orders, accountability, oversight, so on, so forth. Christ, King of His Kingdom, did not even presume to take up the endeavor of Himself, but went forward by commandment of the Father.

No one is necessarily questioning the intent of these organizations, or even arguing that some good has not come of them; however, we are not the ultimate arbiters or definers of what is good. God alone is, and "He hath shewed thee, O man, what is good; and what doth the Lord require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God," (Micah 6.8). This was in response to, perhaps, well-intended questions in verses prior, Wherewith shall I come before the Lord, and bow myself before the high God?:

1. Shall I come before him with burnt offerings, with calves of a year old?
2. Will the Lord be pleased with thousands of rams, or with ten thousands of rivers of oil?
3. Shall I give my firstborn for my transgression, the fruit of my body for the sin of my soul?
​

"Surely the Lord will be pleased with best and purest of intentions!" it seems he's saying. I will give him my first born! Surely he'll take that?! Yet, the answer was not all the thoughts he had, rather, to do justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with God. That is, justly is bound up in what God says is right, not what we think is right, or good, etc. To love mercy, and to walk humbly, that is, not to take it upon ourselves to do things our way, to "help" the Lord in ways He has not commanded, so on so forth.

Is there a place for humanitarian aid not specifically under the auspices of the church? Of course. No one is arguing against that. May these same places point men to Christ, with a right understanding of what being a disciple means (i.e. that it is bound up in the life of the Visible Church, in all its ordinances, doctrines, etc.)? Absolutely! But we must leave off and eschew that kind of egalitarian, one-off, decisionalistic 'gospel' message that presents not a whole Christ, but just some parts of Him that make it tenable to love Him, but not His kingdom. Further, let not these entities call themselves ministries in the official sense, conflating it with that ministry of reconciliation. They are not the same. There are organizations out there ran by Christians, and we praise the Lord for such things, and we also understand that the Lord can use a crooked stick to draw a straight line. Yet, that does not mean He authorized us to support such things because in His secret providence He has apparently used them. He is free. We are not. He is God. We are not. Let us each, as private Christians, seek to subdue our own callings for Christ, adorning our profession, such that men would see our deeds and praise our Father in heaven. Yet, let us not conflate that with the ministry of Reconciliation and the discipling of the nations, which is uniquely, authoritatively, and officially mandated to the kingdom of God on earth, that is, the Church, of Whom there is no other head, except Jesus Christ.

I would agree with everything you say here. I appreciate your thoughts