Trueman makes this admission in his article (linked above), that the Reformers did things that looked para-church-y:
churchmen did things that went beyond church services and meetings directly connected with church governance. In Geneva, the Company of Pastors met for mutual encouragement and edification. In Zurich and then in England, the prophesyings were gatherings focused on helping ministers improve their preaching skills. But these were all churchly in that the men involved were also connected to the same ecclesiastical bodies and subject to the same accountability structures. They were not parachurch groups, standing apart from structures provided by established polity.
Trueman describes the parachurch-like activity done by the Reformers, but then says that these were not really parachurches, which of course, is technically true, but these outside-the-church activities of the Reformers are very similar to how many parachurch orgs run. There is not much functional difference.
His assertion is true of some parachurch orgs (like the Promisekeepers), that they are unconnected to local churches. But, I've already given the example of some parachurch orgs, where the leadership of the org is tied and connected to the oversight of local churches. These parachurch orgs mirror the practices of these Reformers mentioned above in the Trueman quote. I have already given the example of mission orgs being governed by a board of directors drawn from the churches sending them missionaries. This situation seems the same as that described by Trueman in Reformation times.
Trueman then says the same things I have been asserting here in this thread all along:
There are parachurch organisations which are truly para-church, in that they exist to serve, and be subservient to, actual churches, and which fulfill such a narrow function that they cannot be confused with churches. To this group belong institutions such as seminaries and Bible colleges. They have a specific educational remit and are not involved in regular preaching, sacramental duties and discipline with regard to a specific congregation. We might also include in this group those organisations which exist to promote a specific issue or narrowly defined set of issues. Thus, Christian publishers fall into this category. The Council for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood would be parachurch in this sense, as might also be groups such as the Proclamation Trust in the United Kingdom. Few, if any, question whether such groups can, in principle, do good for the church, though there might be some interesting differences of opinion on how exactly they are to be connected to the church. For example, should seminary Board and Faculty members be appointed by the church?
Does Trueman somehow disparage the Church or not respect the Church's role by being so soft on these parachurch orgs? No. He sounds like he is asserting the same position as I am...that all parachurch orgs are not created alike. Some serve the Church and are beneficial...and some are not.
Parachurch orgs must serve the church and be tied and connected closely to the church and not usurp churchly functions (just like Trueman says). When this happens, we can praise God for these groups without feeling as if we've compromised our ecclesiology somehow.
p.s. Trueman admits that the early church document, the Didache, hints at ecclesiastical independency.
So far as seminaries and Bible colleges I see no reason why they should not fall under proper church ecclesiology also.
What would proper church ecclesiolgy be? What would it look like?
What would proper ecclesiology be for seminaries serving several Presbyterian denominations?
What would proper ecclesiology be for independants like baptists who don't have a denominational framework to put a seminary under one "church" or one denomination? What if an association or fraternity or fellowship of churches got together to form a seminary?
