Thoughts about para-church organizations for the brain trust of Puritan Board

Status
Not open for further replies.

BuddyOfDavidClarkson

Puritan Board Freshman
The older I get and the longer I live, I grow increasingly puzzled and concerned over the specticle of para-church organizations. The questions are many and profound.

To begin with, they aren't a church or they wouldn't be a para-church organization. Simple logic there. As a result, they immediately fall outside of the "grid" of the NT regarding who should staff the organization and what their qualifications should be.

Next is the whole role of their interaction with the church. The vast majority of the para-church organizations basically sell teaching materials as their "product". The NT tells me that Elders and Teachers (and each person one-to-another) should fill the role of edifying the church. In the case of an Elder, they have the qualifications to substantiate their qualifications. A Teacher is a member of a church that is under the authority of Elders (or should be). What about a para-church organization? Since they aren't a church, what should the qualifications be? They also aren't the authority of anyone as an organization either. Problematic.

Some of these para-church organizations are bold and if you let them into your church, they'll be happy to tell you who is "certified" to counsel, evangelize, et all. It's as if the Holy Spirit whispers in their ear who He has currently gifted or is about to. Also, when you let an external organization dictate which of your members can do X or not, you've surendered the lordship of Christ.

Ministries, such as John MacArthur's, makes me comfortable - it's a real church that is offering the larger church it's biblical-based teachings. Since they are a church, the products are coming from their Elders and the NT has qualifications for Elder.

I am not inclined to mention the plethora of non-church para-church organizations that also offer teaching materials as well. Since they aren't a church, there is little accountability since they fall outside the "grid" of the NT.

Another good question (?) is why if someone(s) wanted to offer the church teaching materials, why wouldn't they do it as an Elder or Teacher WITHIN the church instead of OUTSIDE the church?

Questions. Questions. Questions.
 
Last edited:
David - allow me to challenge you assumptions for the sake of fueling the discussion.

Crisis pregnancy centers. Biblical or unbiblical? They exist to save unborn babies from being murdered. In my area there exists the Bowie-Crofton Crisis Pregnancy Center. Its board is made up of responsible Christian businessmen and ministers of the gospel. Much of its funding is provided by local churches, although it is not under the auspices of particular church. Their teaching materials ("product" as you called it) are geared towards informing people that life begins at conception. This organization would fit your description of "parachurch." Is it unbiblical? If so, why? If not, why?
 
David - allow me to challenge you assumptions for the sake of fueling the discussion.

Crisis pregnancy centers. Biblical or unbiblical? They exist to save unborn babies from being murdered. In my area there exists the Bowie-Crofton Crisis Pregnancy Center. Its board is made up of responsible Christian businessmen and ministers of the gospel. Much of its funding is provided by local churches, although it is not under the auspices of particular church. Their teaching materials ("product" as you called it) are geared towards informing people that life begins at conception. This organization would fit your description of "parachurch." Is it unbiblical? If so, why? If not, why?

Given your explanation of the purpose of the organization, I would say that this is not a parachurch since proclaiming the gospel is not its primary aim. I think what our brother has in mind is those organizations and ministries who are engaged in Bible teaching, etc.
 
Chris - David began his post on para-church organizations in general. At least that is how I took his post. Also, while the primary purpose of the Bowie-Crofton Crisis Pregnancy Center is not to preach the gospel it does make every effort to share Christ with all who enter for services.

Bill
 
Correct, this is what I have in view.

Crisis pregnancy centers do not exist for the purpose of distributing their teaching materials and certifying the members of your body.

Given your explanation of the purpose of the organization, I would say that this is not a parachurch since proclaiming the gospel is not its primary aim. I think what our brother has in mind is those organizations and ministries who are engaged in Bible teaching, etc.
 
Shouldn't even a CPC be treated as a missionary endeavor though?

David - allow me to challenge you assumptions for the sake of fueling the discussion.

Crisis pregnancy centers. Biblical or unbiblical? They exist to save unborn babies from being murdered. In my area there exists the Bowie-Crofton Crisis Pregnancy Center. Its board is made up of responsible Christian businessmen and ministers of the gospel. Much of its funding is provided by local churches, although it is not under the auspices of particular church. Their teaching materials ("product" as you called it) are geared towards informing people that life begins at conception. This organization would fit your description of "parachurch." Is it unbiblical? If so, why? If not, why?
 
Shouldn't even a CPC be treated as a missionary endeavor though?

Okay...I was waiting for this question, I didn't want to bring it up myself. If we are to regard CPC's as missionary endeavors doesn't that smack of being arbitrary? How about Crown Financial Ministries (the old Larry Burket ministry)? Missionary or parachurch? Rescue missions? They certainly preach the gospel (yes, many are free willies) and teach but also provide acts of charity. Pacific Garden Mission in Chicago comes to mind. Missionary or parachurch? I think we start to open a :worms: when classifying this various ministries. I am NOT saying is not a worthwhile discussion. It is. I just believe it needs a lot of thought.
 
In short, I believe parachurch organizations that presume to do what the Church is strictly required to do end up doing more damage to the Body of Christ than help.

I believe the Church is responsible for Word, Sacrament, and Discipline with all the stuff that falls under them. I don't believe you have a proper Gospel unless it includes the care and feeding of the sheep you have just called.

Part of the problem is that everybody thinks they're in "ministry" when they are simply doing things that they have the liberty to do. Christians have lost their sense of what the Church is about so everything to them is ministry. I cannot simply help my neighbor out of love for them but I'm going to love them because I have a "Helping Ministry". "Christian" music is another example where a banal jingle is baptized as Christian because the word Jesus was added to the lyrics.

I'm not at all against worthy causes that exist outside of the boundaries of a Church that do philanthropic work but they can be covered under love of neighbor and vocation. We have liberty to participate in any number of loving activities outside the Church.

But the spread of the Gospel should be done in cooperation with the Church. This sounds very simplistic and pretends like I have no idea of the unreached masses that exist out there. I know only far too well about the unreached masses living on an island where only 1% of the people are Christians and the rest worship their ancestors. For those who haven't read what I once posted about the Franklin Graham's visit here recently then you can read it here:
http://www.solideogloria.com/story/2006/08/01/02.14.44

Franklin Graham came, he "preached", he left. Where are all the people that made "decisions"? They're not in Church. Are they Christians? Maybe they're in the Roman Catholic Churches here or perhaps they're in a Pentecostal Church. Some verse about being made twice as fit for hell comes to mind.

I cannot use a stronger word than this: I HATE many parachurch activities for this reason. They think they are honoring God by bringing people into contact with the Gospel and getting a decision but have no Church, no discipleship to offer. The Church disciples. A parachurch cannot do so. It cannot even divide between truth and error because it has not God appointed presbyters to bind or loose. Thus parachurch groups accept everything from Pentecostals to Presbyterians to Catholics.
 
Rich - okay...I think I have the gist of what you posted. Do you think you painted with a wide brush? Do all parachurch organizations fall into the same classification? In a previous post I mentioned rescue missions. The reason I brought them up is because I have some experience in that area, having worked in that field. The two that I worked for were supported by local churches. Many of the board members were pastors. The suburban white churches had fled the city of Paterson, NJ and left the inner city poor and destitute. The Star of Hope Mission in Paterson provided job training, food, clothing etc. In addition they held a gospel meeting each week and presented the gospel to each and every person who came through the door. Yes, free willy style. Like your typical Baptist church.

I am not looking to justify bad doctrine in the name of ministering in Jesus name. I'm just wondering whether everything in this area is black and white or whether there are any shades of gray.

??
 
Bill,

I think I painted with a fairly narrow brush in only condemning the practice of those who presume to think they're spreading the Gospel apart from the Church. In the example cited, I think it's good that they feed and clothe people but not good that they think they have just discipled a man by sending him on his way with a full stomach and a few words about Jesus.

I contribute to philanthropic organizations that keep children from starving. I don't consider that to be parachurch though but just loving your neighbor.
 
Bill,

I think I painted with a fairly narrow brush in only condemning the practice of those who presume to think they're spreading the Gospel apart from the Church. In the example cited, I think it's good that they feed and clothe people but not good that they think they have just discipled a man by sending him on his way with a full stomach and a few words about Jesus.

I contribute to philanthropic organizations that keep children from starving. I don't consider that to be parachurch though but just loving your neighbor.

Rich - okay. I think we are saying the same thing but from different perspectives. Knowing what I know now I would not work for these rescue missions because of deep doctrinal differences. It would be the same as if I decided to leave my current church. I could not go back to our sending church because it is a typical Arminian slanted Baptist church.

I am not sure what philanthropic organization you support but I am glad that you do support efforts to feed starving children. We support a similiar organization that is Christian based and brings the gospel to the children and their parents. Is their soteriology spot on? Honestly Rich, I don't know. But since no one else is telling them about Christ, I pray the Lord uses this organization (and others like it) to call these children to repentance and faith.

Your other criticisms of parachurch organizations have much truth. The more I think about it many of these organizations are indictments against established churches that have abdicated their role to reach the lost. Weak churches beget all sorts of ills. If nothing else this thread is a sober reminder to me that the church I go to should be feeding the sheep, seeking the lost and displaying the love of Christ in all things.
 
Rich - okay. I think we are saying the same thing but from different perspectives. Knowing what I know now I would not work for these rescue missions because of deep doctrinal differences. It would be the same as if I decided to leave my current church. I could not go back to our sending church because it is a typical Arminian slanted Baptist church.

I am not sure what philanthropic organization you support but I am glad that you do support efforts to feed starving children. We support a similiar organization that is Christian based and brings the gospel to the children and their parents. Is their soteriology spot on? Honestly Rich, I don't know. But since no one else is telling them about Christ, I pray the Lord uses this organization (and others like it) to call these children to repentance and faith.

Your other criticisms of parachurch organizations have much truth. The more I think about it many of these organizations are indictments against established churches that have abdicated their role to reach the lost. Weak churches beget all sorts of ills. If nothing else this thread is a sober reminder to me that the church I go to should be feeding the sheep, seeking the lost and displaying the love of Christ in all things.

I agree that it is an indictment upon many Churches that parachurches have thrived but the errors are much more basic. There are solid Reformed efforts to evangelize though bona fide missions but they are a drop in the bucket based on the relatively small proportion of Reformed Churches in the world.

The mainliners that were once large became liberal and there was no more need for evangelism.

The Arminian fundamentalists perpetuate the problem and even encourage the spread of the disease. They view the idea that one can just be converted and then sent on their way. A check in the block. I'm frustrated by the fact that many in my Southern Baptist congregation think they are evangelizing people by just telling them about Jesus and getting decisions and prayers. Their "converts" never come to Church but, in their minds, they've done the Lord's work. What would make them think that a person need only be converted and can then "take care of themselves with God"? Well, their Church does because there is such poor oversight.

This "problem" is thus lost on most people who call themselves Evangelical today. They decided for Jesus and they take care of their spiritual selves so it's enough to tell people one by one about Christ and send them on their way - Church not included.
 
Where does somewhere like Westminster Seminary California fall into this category? It's distinctive is that it does appear to remain accountable to the churches tbat found it. Thoughts - or did I stir up the hornet's nest?
 
In short, I believe parachurch organizations that presume to do what the Church is strictly required to do end up doing more damage to the Body of Christ than help.

Good post, but I wonder if God Himself sometimes raises up some (certainly not all) parachurch organizations as a rebuke to the Church for not doing some of the things it should be doing. Certainly, as an expression of His sovereignty, He is free to do so, if He wishes.
 
More solid points.

This whole issue has been aggravating me for years. I should write a paper on it.

In short, I believe parachurch organizations that presume to do what the Church is strictly required to do end up doing more damage to the Body of Christ than help.

I believe the Church is responsible for Word, Sacrament, and Discipline with all the stuff that falls under them. I don't believe you have a proper Gospel unless it includes the care and feeding of the sheep you have just called.

Part of the problem is that everybody thinks they're in "ministry" when they are simply doing things that they have the liberty to do. Christians have lost their sense of what the Church is about so everything to them is ministry. I cannot simply help my neighbor out of love for them but I'm going to love them because I have a "Helping Ministry". "Christian" music is another example where a banal jingle is baptized as Christian because the word Jesus was added to the lyrics.

I'm not at all against worthy causes that exist outside of the boundaries of a Church that do philanthropic work but they can be covered under love of neighbor and vocation. We have liberty to participate in any number of loving activities outside the Church.

But the spread of the Gospel should be done in cooperation with the Church. This sounds very simplistic and pretends like I have no idea of the unreached masses that exist out there. I know only far too well about the unreached masses living on an island where only 1% of the people are Christians and the rest worship their ancestors. For those who haven't read what I once posted about the Franklin Graham's visit here recently then you can read it here:
http://www.solideogloria.com/story/2006/08/01/02.14.44

Franklin Graham came, he "preached", he left. Where are all the people that made "decisions"? They're not in Church. Are they Christians? Maybe they're in the Roman Catholic Churches here or perhaps they're in a Pentecostal Church. Some verse about being made twice as fit for hell comes to mind.

I cannot use a stronger word than this: I HATE many parachurch activities for this reason. They think they are honoring God by bringing people into contact with the Gospel and getting a decision but have no Church, no discipleship to offer. The Church disciples. A parachurch cannot do so. It cannot even divide between truth and error because it has not God appointed presbyters to bind or loose. Thus parachurch groups accept everything from Pentecostals to Presbyterians to Catholics.
 
Jenson,

I don't presume to be the judge and final arbiter of the good and the bad of parachurch organizations.

None of the above activities supplants the Church's role of the Preaching of the Word, the Administration of the Sacraments, or Church Discipline and I wouldn't have a problem with any of them.

Let me be clear: I am NOT against all organizations outside of the Church that participate in activities that glorify God. I thought I made that clear but I guess I did not. I am against those that think that the preaching of the Word and the spread of the Gospel can be accomplished outside of Church oversight.
 
quoted from Rich Lenio:

The Arminian fundamentalists perpetuate the problem and even encourage the spread of the disease. They view the idea that one can just be converted and then sent on their way. A check in the block. I'm frustrated by the fact that many in my Southern Baptist congregation think they are evangelizing people by just telling them about Jesus and getting decisions and prayers. Their "converts" never come to Church but, in their minds, they've done the Lord's work. What would make them think that a person need only be converted and can then "take care of themselves with God"? Well, their Church does because there is such poor oversight.

Rich - interesting that you should make these comments. This was part of our discussion last evening at our church bible study. We were going over our church doctrinal statement and the five solas were being discussed. The question was raised, "How does a person get saved?" We then discussed the individuals responsibility in evangelism. Ephesians 2:8,9 provides a concise explanation as to how a person comes to faith in Christ. As far as the individuals responsibility to evangelize, I believe that is a more delicate affair. You rightly pointed out that the denomination you are attending seeks for decisions. I believe that is indicative of many Arminian leaning churches in general. Decisions that lack true repentance and true faith leave individuals with a false assurance of salvation and deceive the person doing the evangelizing.

All of this is an impetus for the parachurch phenomena. Well meaning individuals step out with a desire to convert souls. But it doesn't end there. Organizations such as Focus on the Family do not see evangelism as their main goal. They seek to offer support and resources to the Christian family. Does Focus on the Family do any good? Yes, I believe they do. Does it do any harm? Yes, that too. By attempting to appeal to all Christians they take a sort of ecumenical approach. They are not alone in this regard but they are one of the most famous. So here is the question: what can the local church do to combat the parachurch problem? I'll provide some suggestions. We've discussed the thread to death...why not try to solve the problem?

Within the local church...

1. Recognize more fully the need to reach out to the community. Seek needs and meet them. Exist beyond four walls.

2. Support missionary projects locally. Whether started by an individual church or with a group of like-minded churches, support local missions activity. Earlier I brought up Crisis Pregnancy Centers. A young girl who is pregnant cannot wait until a church decides to minister to her. That is why CPC's exist. Reformed churches should be engaged in this activity heavily, whether it be starting a CPC or becoming involved with one that already exists.

Another example. Our church is located almost right outside the gate of Ft. Meade. We have discussed an endeavor to reach out to military personnel stationed there. There is a missions organization called Missions to the Military, but they have no presence on Ft. Meade. So as an act of missions we have discussed making a concerted effort to "stand in the gap." It is now time for us to turn discussion into reality.

3. Evangelism. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that the local church should be involved in evangelism beyond the walls of the church. There are many different opinions on this, even among PB members. But I think we are deluding ourselves if we believe God is just going to send the unsaved into our churches. We need to proclaim the gospel from the pulpit and outside the pulpit. The question is how to do it.

4. Reach out to the inner cities. Consider church planting. Find ways to bring right theology into areas of blight. This is way out of the comfort zone of many. It certainly is out of my comfort zone.

These are just four examples. Unfortunately too many churches go Sunday to Sunday with nothing in between. The community hardly knows they exist. I honestly believe that if the local church were to rise up in action that there would be far fewer parachurch organizations. Idealistic? Maybe. But how passionate are we on the topic?
 
In short, I believe parachurch organizations that presume to do what the Church is strictly required to do end up doing more damage to the Body of Christ than help.

I believe the Church is responsible for Word, Sacrament, and Discipline with all the stuff that falls under them. I don't believe you have a proper Gospel unless it includes the care and feeding of the sheep you have just called.

Part of the problem is that everybody thinks they're in "ministry" when they are simply doing things that they have the liberty to do. Christians have lost their sense of what the Church is about so everything to them is ministry. I cannot simply help my neighbor out of love for them but I'm going to love them because I have a "Helping Ministry". "Christian" music is another example where a banal jingle is baptized as Christian because the word Jesus was added to the lyrics.

I'm not at all against worthy causes that exist outside of the boundaries of a Church that do philanthropic work but they can be covered under love of neighbor and vocation. We have liberty to participate in any number of loving activities outside the Church.

But the spread of the Gospel should be done in cooperation with the Church. This sounds very simplistic and pretends like I have no idea of the unreached masses that exist out there. I know only far too well about the unreached masses living on an island where only 1% of the people are Christians and the rest worship their ancestors. For those who haven't read what I once posted about the Franklin Graham's visit here recently then you can read it here:
http://www.solideogloria.com/story/2006/08/01/02.14.44

Franklin Graham came, he "preached", he left. Where are all the people that made "decisions"? They're not in Church. Are they Christians? Maybe they're in the Roman Catholic Churches here or perhaps they're in a Pentecostal Church. Some verse about being made twice as fit for hell comes to mind.

I cannot use a stronger word than this: I HATE many parachurch activities for this reason. They think they are honoring God by bringing people into contact with the Gospel and getting a decision but have no Church, no discipleship to offer. The Church disciples. A parachurch cannot do so. It cannot even divide between truth and error because it has not God appointed presbyters to bind or loose. Thus parachurch groups accept everything from Pentecostals to Presbyterians to Catholics.

:ditto:

Had I known these issues, I never would have even applied to CCC back in the 70's. While it was ultimately for my good, it's still 3 years I'll never get back. Sadly, that combined with years of growing up under liberal protestantism and subsequent derailment into Armininan churches became the occasion for years of unlearning that continued long past my introduction into the Reformed understanding, a remarkable providence in itself.
 
Last edited:
How has world missions been affected and what do we do now? And are all instances bad?




William Carey was a member of a para-church org, as are most cross-cultural workers!



But....

If each of these men are ordained elders sent out from their churches and they decide to voluntarily group together for the broader cause of the Gospel, then this appears to be a para-church org that is still overseen - at least in theory - by local bodies.




The Apostle Paul seemed to work in conjunction with a great number of folks who were not also directly sent out by his sending church of Antioch (Priscella and Aquilla, etc)....


I agree that there are many totally unattached PCOs that try to usurp the role of the church, but I would hate to stifle the work of world missions or forsake good Christian services (such as the Chapel Library as before-mentioned) by throwing the baby out with the bathwater.



What about Reformed Student Unions and college Bible study groups? They seem like a good idea, but there is Bible teaching going on. Must only an older elder from the church (instead of a student) lead these small groups?



What is the role of the laity acting on their own initiative?
 
:ditto:

Had I known these issues, I never would have even applied to CCC back in the 70's. While it was ultimately for my good, it's still 3 years I'll never get back. Sadly, that combined with years of growing up under liberal protestantism and subsequent derailment into Armininan churches became the occasion for years of unlearning that continued long past my introduction into the Reformed understanding, a remarkable providence in itself.

Jay - the praise is that God used your early years to bring you where you are now. I have traveled your road.
 
Shouldn't even a CPC be treated as a missionary endeavor though?

I suppose that some could certainly considered missionary endeavors depending on who is running it. But there is nothing distinctively Christian about a crisis pregnancy center. There are people of all kinds of different beliefs who oppose abortion, including evangelicals, Roman Catholics, athiests, etc.
 
Rich - okay...I think I have the gist of what you posted. Do you think you painted with a wide brush? Do all parachurch organizations fall into the same classification? In a previous post I mentioned rescue missions. The reason I brought them up is because I have some experience in that area, having worked in that field. The two that I worked for were supported by local churches. Many of the board members were pastors. The suburban white churches had fled the city of Paterson, NJ and left the inner city poor and destitute. The Star of Hope Mission in Paterson provided job training, food, clothing etc. In addition they held a gospel meeting each week and presented the gospel to each and every person who came through the door. Yes, free willy style. Like your typical Baptist church.

I am not looking to justify bad doctrine in the name of ministering in Jesus name. I'm just wondering whether everything in this area is black and white or whether there are any shades of gray.

??

Certainly not all parachurch organizations constitute an unequal yoke like the one Rich has described. But I tend to agree with him overall.

At best it appears that parachurch organizations arise as an expedient when the church has abdicated its misson and/or is on the downgrade, and these groups are formed to try to do what the church has failed to do. Examples of this include the rescue missions, which as you say often come about because the churches have selfishly abandoned these areas or doesn't want to get its hands dirty. Wouldn't it be better to plant a church instead, or to leave part of the church behind?

Other examples a bit closer to home were the Independent Board of Presbyterian Missions and Westminster Theological Seminary by Northern Presbyterians in the 1920's and Reformed Theological Seminary by Southerners in the 1960's. The two seminaries were formed because of the compromise and error that had captured the existing denominational seminaries, and the Independent Board because the PCUSA at the time were sending out missionaries who did not believe the gospel.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top