Consistent Presbyterianism and "Ministries"

[ERK]

Let's say you have a member of your church that wants to start a soup kitchen. He would like the church to support this ministry financially and by encouraging members to help. The church agrees on the condition that they provide oversight. The member consents. Later the member complains that no one from the church has been willing to come help and that the church has brought so much "red-tape" with their oversight that the joy of this ministry has been choked out by bureaucracy. The member thinks that the only attention given to him by the church was lip service and micromanagement.

What's the root problem here? Would it have been better for the member not to have asked for official help from the church? Should the church have even entered into that situation in the first place? Was this a result of the institutional church operating outside its jurisdiction and the member misunderstanding the church's mission?

I am sure there are countless similar scenarios involving church run schools or ballet programs. But I also realize that many of these ministries happen without perceived problems.

Nevertheless, when they do have problems, is it just "the messiness of ministry" or is it evidence that the church has overstepped its bounds and possibly even neglected its calling (maybe members are burnt out by other such initiatives or simply unmotivated for mercy ministry because they are themselves spiritually not well fed)? (I realize it could just be that people are busy with other callings.)

I am trying to understand the fundamental principle here. Should presbyterian churches even get involved officially with "ministries" that are not part of the church's narrowly defined ministry?

 

[Polanus1561]

"Later the member complains that no one from the church has been willing to come help and that the church has brought so much "red-tape" with their oversight that the joy of this ministry has been choked out by bureaucracy. The member thinks that the only attention given to him by the church was lip service and micromanagement."

1. Did the church publicize ministry but yet no one came forth to help? Is the leadership at direct fault for a lack of volunteers?
2. Red tape - what did this look like?
3. What was promised but not delivered?

I think you are hitting a wide range of issues including members not being spiritually fed. Your post is not easy to interact with.

my 2c.

 

[ERK]

"Later the member complains that no one from the church has been willing to come help and that the church has brought so much "red-tape" with their oversight that the joy of this ministry has been choked out by bureaucracy. The member thinks that the only attention given to him by the church was lip service and micromanagement."

1. Did the church publicize ministry but yet no one came forth to help? Is the leadership at direct fault for a lack of volunteers?
2. Red tape - what did this look like?
3. What was promised but not delivered?

I think you are hitting a wide range of issues including members not being spiritually fed. Your post is not easy to interact with.

my 2c.

my apologies. My main question is: is it worth all the fuss and even right for churches to be officially involved in ministries this way.

1. Let’s say yes. Let’s say the ministry was not high priority and got lost amongst everything else.
2. Let’s say the session required a discipleship component be added to the ministry and that the leader of said discipleship had to be approved by the session.
3. Let’s say the session did everything they promised: they informed the congregation and designated funds to support the soup kitchen ministry, but no one wanted to help.

Again, my basic question is: is this situation downstream from a problem of jurisdiction? Should a Presbyterian church even have this kind of official relationship with a soup kitchen?

 

[cschmidt]

I mean in this situation the individual asked the Church for support and help. In order to make sure things were run correctly the Church wanted to make sure it provided proper insight. It might be best in this situation for the individual to humble himself and trust the input of the Church.

I personally would then take the steps necessary as laid out from the elders, look to find someone qualified, ask them to once again request for help from the congregation, and then I would turn to the men in my Bible studies and explain why I think this ministry is important and how I could use some help.

 

[TylerRay]

my apologies. My main question is: is it worth all the fuss and even right for churches to be officially involved in ministries this way.

1. Let’s say yes. Let’s say the ministry was not high priority and got lost amongst everything else.
2. Let’s say the session required a discipleship component be added to the ministry and that the leader of said discipleship had to be approved by the session.
3. Let’s say the session did everything they promised: they informed the congregation and designated funds to support the soup kitchen ministry, but no one wanted to help.

Again, my basic question is: is this situation downstream from a problem of jurisdiction? Should a Presbyterian church even have this kind of official relationship with a soup kitchen?

Hey, brother! It's been a while!

You ask a good question. The church's mission, as the church, is a spiritual one: to disciple the nations. Jesus never commissioned his apostles (the foundational church officers) to feed the hungry. It is true that they ministered to the needs of folks through miraculous healing, but these were signs given to authenticate their message, not ends in themselves. While Christians are exhorted, 'As we have therefore opportunity, let us do good unto all men, especially unto them who are of the household of faith' (Gal 6:10), note that the exhortation is to Christians as private individuals, as they have have opportunity, not to the church as an institution. The church's funds are used in scripture to relieve those within the body as they have need (like the widows in Acts 6), and great care was taken to make sure that the need was real and that the recipients were worthy (I Tim 5:3-16). The church is unable to exercise such oversight over the beneficiaries of a community soup kitchen, and few of them would probably meet the Scriptural qualifications for church support anyway.

Now, if Christians from a particular church, as private individuals, want to band together to start a soup kitchen for the relief of the hungry, that could be a very good thing. But there's nothing in Scripture which warrants it as an organ of the church.

 

[ERK]

Hey, brother! It's been a while!

You ask a good question. The church's mission, as the church, is a spiritual one: to disciple the nations. Jesus never commissioned his apostles (the foundational church officers) to feed the hungry. It is true that they ministered to the needs of folks through miraculous healing, but these were signs given to authenticate their message, not ends in themselves. While Christians are exhorted, 'As we have therefore opportunity, let us do good unto all men, especially unto them who are of the household of faith' (Gal 6:10), note that the exhortation is to Christians as private individuals, as they have have opportunity, not to the church as an institution. The church's funds are used in scripture to relieve those within the body as they have need (like the widows in Acts 6), and great care was taken to make sure that the need was real and that the recipients were worthy (I Tim 5:3-16). The church is unable to exercise such oversight over the beneficiaries of a community soup kitchen, and few of them would probably meet the Scriptural qualifications for church support anyway.

Now, if Christians from a particular church, as private individuals, want to band together to start a soup kitchen for the relief of the hungry, that could be a very good thing. But there's nothing in Scripture which warrants it as an organ of the church.

Great to hear from you!

Your response resonates with how I understand church power. I am personally working out practical philosophy of ministry concerns in my mind. There’s quite a diversity of opinion in the PCA on these matters.

Would it be most consistent to say that the Church draws the line at worship, missions, and mercy in the church? Everything else is outside the church’s work as an institution?

Individual Christians can be engaged in parachurch ministries that support and do not take away from the church’s mission, and these institutions are best kept separate? I would think that bringing them together would create the kind of scenario above (I’ve seen it in various forms).

Thanks!

 

[TylerRay]

Would it be most consistent to say that the Church draws the line at worship, missions, and mercy in the church? Everything else is outside the church’s work as an institution?

Individual Christians can be engaged in parachurch ministries that support and do not take away from the church’s mission, and these institutions are best kept separate? I would think that bringing them together would create the kind of scenario above (I’ve seen it in various forms).

Thanks!

The functions of the church are indicated by the officers (or functionaries) that Christ has given to his church--pastors, teachers, elders, and deacons. Anything outside of the functions of these offices is outside the Christ-ordained functions of the church. The list you suggest is good; I would perhaps add shepherding. Obviously there are things that need to be done subservient to these ends, as well.

I think you're right about parachurch organizations. They shouldn't usurp the place of the church; instead they are expressions of what God has done in the souls of private Christians. One example is a Christian school. God never commissioned his church to teach math, science, philosophy, etc., but it can be a very helpful thing for Christians to band together and start a school to give an education to their children that's rooted in the faith. They could even set rules up, like that the governing board of the school must belong to a particular church or subscribe to a particular creed.

 

[Edward]

Tempting to post the four page letter from one of our members when he rage quit the church because he didn't think he was getting enough support for his urban ministry. But that wouldn't be prudent. And I don't want to dig through my emails looking for it.

 

[arapahoepark]

Tempting to post the four page letter from one of our members when he rage quit the church because he didn't think he was getting enough support for his urban ministry. But that wouldn't be prudent. And I don't want to dig through my emails looking for it.

Perhaps an outline from.memory would suffice?