# Para church "ministries"



## R. Scott Clark (Mar 4, 2006)

Recently I got an email re "para-church ministries." I expanded my reply a bit and thought it would be useful.
---

Some argue that para-church ministries are unbiblical because they operate outside the authority of the church. Others argue that they are a useful adjunct to the church, doing what it doesn't or can't do. I've been on both sides of this debate. Thanks to the work of Darryl Hart, Mike Horton, and David Van Drunen, however, I've found a third way to think about this question. 

Is the institutional church just one divinely ordained institution among many to propagate the gospel or is it the divinely ordained institution? Scripture as understood by the Reformed confessions is actually quite clear that the latter view is correct.

We should distinguish between the church as the divinely ordained institution for the propagation of the gospel, the administration of the sacraments and discipline, and other institutions. 

The institutional church is the uniquely qualified institution to minister the grace of Christ. It was to the institutional church that Christ gave the keys (see Matt 16 and 18 and Luke 22, and the latest issue of EVANGELIUM). 

Heidelberg Catechism Q. 83 says:

Q: What is the Office of the Keys?

A: The preaching of the Holy Gospel and Christian discipline; by these two the kingdom of heaven is opened to believers and shut against unbelievers

If this true, then no other earthly institution can do these things. No other earthly institution has the keys and represents the kingdom of God on the earth. In that case, considered narrowly, there are no such things as "para-church ministries." They may be para-church (alongside the church) in some sense, but they are not quasi-church. They are not the church at all. Therefore, by definition, they aren't ministries either. They are private societies populated by Christians.

Only the church is authorized and competent to do "kingdom work." Whatever is done by any other institution or entity is not ecclesiastical and thus not a kingdom work. That's okay. The rest of life belongs to the civil realm. That kingdom too is ordained by God. Civil life is common to humanity and good. If so, we don't need to make Christian endeavor into "kingdom work" or "ministry." What's wrong with the old category of "Christian work?" 

This view does not make the church omni competent or omnipotent. It actually limits what the church as church can do. The Belgic Confession Art. 29 says that there are three marks of a true church: 

The marks by which the true Church is known are these: If the pure doctrine of the gospel is preached therein; if it maintains the pure administration of the sacraments as instituted by Christ; if church discipline is exercised in chastening of sin.

The church, as a corporate institution, isn't authorized to do anything other than these three things. In my experience, if she tries to add to this list, something suffers. Even with the help of grace we remain finite, sinful human beings. Thus, in my view, Christians are free as private persons to form societies to do all manner of useful things, but whatever they do, those societies are not the visible, institutional church, and thus no threat to the church. The biggest threat to the church is probably the church! She tends to get distracted from her mission and mandate to execute the revealed will of her head (Matt 28:18-20; Acts 2:42).

As a matter of prudence, it might be better if they those societies focused to civil (not necessarily "political" just non-ecclesiastical and cultural) matters, but that is a matter of Christian freedom. As private persons, Christians may form hospitals, schools, and other societies that serve civil functions. Christians have a long history of doing charitable work and that should continue. That is not to say that the church as an institution should do those things. 

This distinction has far-reaching implications that cannot be traced out in a blog, but we should neither denigrate the work of Christians as private persons nor should we confuse it with the work of the ministry. 

rsc


----------



## knight4christ8 (Mar 4, 2006)

Thank Dr. Clark. This is helpful.

I am thinking particularly of 'Campus Crusade for Christ'. What are your ideas about a "private society" like this? Missions organizations? 

I see these as the result Church duties being neglected. Of course Presbyterian governed churches are much more prepared to support their missions and youth outreach on a large scale. Are baptistic and independent roots to blame for the existence of such organizations?


----------



## Peters (Mar 5, 2006)

Most para-church organizations here in the uk observe the Lord's Table and focus on things like evangelism and teaching. If people behave in an unacceptable manner, they must leave. They seem to do all the things that are given to the church to do, so i see them, at least here in the uk, as doing more harm than good. Because of the para-church, more people, especially younger people, fail to see the importance of the local church. 

"Campus Crusade for Christ" is certainly a crusade, though i'm not sure it is for Christ.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Mar 5, 2006)

Dr. Clark,

One of the things I like about you (and there are many) is how humble you are and willing to commend your colleagues. I really like the way you admit you learn from and admire your fellow professors at Westminster. You really do have a talented bunch there.

David Van Drunen preached at our Church but, I admit, I didn't realize what a treasure he was back then.

Thank you for participating on this board. It's really nice to have scholars here because I learn much by sounding things off. It's good to have lots of folks, especially well educated and wise ones, to sound off too and refine my theology with.

I have some other observations regarding parachurch but I'm pressed for time and mainly wanted to commend you.


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Mar 5, 2006)

So where do seminaries fit in your understanding Dr. Clark?


----------



## Me Died Blue (Mar 5, 2006)

> _Originally posted by SemperFideles_
> Dr. Clark,
> 
> One of the things I like about you (and there are many) is how humble you are and willing to commend your colleagues. I really like the way you admit you learn from and admire your fellow professors at Westminster. You really do have a talented bunch there.





> _Originally posted by SemperFideles_
> Thank you for participating on this board. It's really nice to have scholars here because I learn much by sounding things off. It's good to have lots of folks, especially well educated and wise ones, to sound off too and refine my theology with.



 to both points. I have likewise benefitted from and enjoyed your continual participation on this board, as well as material I've read of yours off-site as a result. I'm also amazed at the time you're even able to be on here. (And who knows, I may eventually learn from you and your colleagues more directly in a couple years, depending on where I end up.)



> _Originally posted by puritansailor_
> So where do seminaries fit in your understanding Dr. Clark?



That's an excellent question, Patrick. I was actually wondering along those same lines as I read. Even though a seminary is ultimately working to _serve_ the Church, I suppose this question is especially relevant concerning a given seminary that is not under the direct authority and leadership of a church by affiliation - and also relevant to the question of what exactly such affiliation means and entails for seminaries that _do_ have it.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Mar 5, 2006)

Dr. Clark,

I have a few spare moments now so I wanted to ask about Chaplains.

In some instances there is really no alternative to attending weekly worship at the Base Chapel (overseas locations or while deployed). The problem is that it's pretty random (certainly Providence is always at work) as to the Chaplain one might end up with. Seems like there's an increasing number of female Chaplains but there are, thankfully, some Reformed chaplains out there. Of course, the Chaplain Corps has a very powerful Roman Catholic contingent and many of the senior Chaplains are RC that make decisions regarding who will be assigned to units or even to certain chapels for Church services.

I've been fortunate to have some great chaplains work for me. I had an Anglican chaplain that believed the Scriptures and was a pleasure to talk theology with. He told me of a few Chaplain Corps horror stories. In one, the Roman Catholic chaplain in charge of the Base Chapels was insistent on rotating the Protestant chaplains around at different chapels throughout the Base. Of course, he was an idiot and considered the Mormon chaplain to be Protestant. He ended up sending him down to be the chaplain for a group of Baptists that had been meeting regularly with a Baptist chaplain. The Baptists ended up leaving that chapel and going elsewhere.

Anyway, the problems with Chaplains abound but appear to be somewhat of a necessity. When you're in the middle of Iraq and you have a choice to either worship with an Episcopal priest officiating or not at all then you worship. Our priest in the desert conducted religious services and presented the Gospel. In one sense he was doing work of the Church but, in another sense, he lacked ecclesiastical authority as he could not exercise any Church discipline.


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Mar 5, 2006)

Rich, at least in Presbyterian circles, chaplains usually fall under the category of missionaries. They are ordained ministers strictly for that purpose, kind of like church planters.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Mar 6, 2006)

> _Originally posted by puritansailor_
> Rich, at least in Presbyterian circles, chaplains usually fall under the category of missionaries. They are ordained ministers strictly for that purpose, kind of like church planters.


Right. My attention was a bit distracted earlier but my point was that they (and other Chaplains) perform the work of Gospel preaching without any real ability to establish real Church discipline that attends it. It just makes things a bit crazy sometimes.

The Lord's Supper is even a bit more complicated. Lutherans will not celebrate it except separate services for the Lutheran people - usually in different services. It becomes a "your good enough to worship with but not to celebrate the Supper with" kind of thing. 

You also have the issue of a solid preacher one week and a heretic the next when there are multiple chaplains of different denominations at a single chapel.

Our Group chaplain is a female...


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Mar 6, 2006)

> _Originally posted by SemperFideles_
> You also have the issue of a solid preacher one week and a heretic the next when there are multiple chaplains of different denominations at a single chapel.



Don't you hate that?! That was so annoying to me when I was in the Navy to have the swapping chaplain thing. At least you don't get stuck with the liberal ones EVERY week....


----------



## Scott (Mar 6, 2006)

Dr. Clark: That is a helpful post. Thanks!


----------



## R. Scott Clark (Mar 6, 2006)

Thanks for the responses. 

1. No non-eccelsiastical body (i.e., no entity that does not meet the tests of BC 29) should be administering sacraments. 

2. I knew I was ducking the question of seminaries. There are two acceptable options and I've held both views. 

The Old School and Old Side answer is that properly they should be ecclesiastical. Machen's answer was that seminaries can be or are properly independent since it isn't the business of the church as church to teach Greek, history, writing, etc. This was part of his conception of the spirituality of the church. 

In favor of the Old Side/School argument is that we train students for pastoral ministry. In favor of Machen's argument is that our faculty serve with vocations from our congregations/presbyteries so we fulfill our vocations in the seminary.

As I've argued before, I think Machen has a point about the spirituality of the church, but I understand concern that the seminary per se is not under direct, immediate, ecclesiastical control. 

I guess I could go either way. At the moment I agree with Machen. 

As to time and writing here, I've enjoyed it very much and have learned much but I have been getting some pressure to do more technical writing and less popular writing. I'll be back, but not as often. 

I do hope to see some of you in the future in class! That would be terrific. 

Cheers,

rsc


----------



## tcalbrecht (Mar 6, 2006)

I serve in a parachurch organication, namely, Christian Motorcyclists Association. The primary focus of the ministry is to bring the gospel to members of the motorcycle community. We do this by distributing Bibles and tracts, and through service-oriented projects at secular motorcycle events (water wagons, handling parking, etc).

I agree there is a tendency in these parachurch groups to step over the line into the distinctive works of the church, namely administering the sacraments. They are also often caught up in the idea of giving someone "assurance" of their salvation based on praying a prayer or some such thing. My view is that until a person is baptized and associated with a local church where the word is preached and discipline can be carried out, such "assurance" is mythical. As Jesus said, "If you love me you will obey my commandments." That would include being baptized and joining with a church.


----------

