# Parachurch Org. and women "preachers"



## moselle

I have noticed a couple of women (on TV) who appear to be preaching, although they are not technically shepherding a church, so to speak. 

I guess I have two questions here - are parachurch organizations necessary or a good thing if their main focus is to teach/preach general scripture (as opposed to specialized Biblical teaching - apologetics, finance, or family matters, etc.)

And two, should women be the "teachers" here? They look and act like preachers behind a pulpit with a general "audience", but without sacraments or typical church order. It seems they are walking a very fine line.


----------



## Herald

Moselle, you are answering your own questions. In an ideal world parachurch organizations (crisis pregnancy centers, Christian adoption agencies, evangelism ministries etc.) would not be necessary. The ideal would would find a thriving church fulfilling most or all of these functions. But in the world in which we do live in parachurch organizations can be quite useful and good. But when the scriptures are being taught women are not to be the teachers. Church order should permeate all that we do in the name of Christ.


----------



## MLCOPE2

Also, In my humble opinion, all parachurch organizations, and/or their leaders, should be under the care and supervision of a local church, or governing church body, and should operate under the same principles and guidelines of said church.


----------



## TimV

I can see why they would seem to be necessary in an independent Baptistic world view, but there is no reason for their existence in a hierarchially organised church. The PCAs and OPCs and ARPs etc.. of this world are large and sophisticated enough to fulfil all the need currently (usually badly) filled by the Campus Crusades and Worldvision et. al. that we have today.


----------



## MLCOPE2

TimV said:


> I can see why they would seem to be necessary in an independent Baptistic world view, but there is no reason for their existence in a hierarchially organised church. The PCAs and OPCs and ARPs etc.. of this world are large and sophisticated enough to fulfil all the need currently (usually badly) filled by the Campus Crusades and Worldvision et. al. that we have today.



I'm not saying that I advocate parachurch organizations. On the contrary I believe all ministries like that should be formed and worked in local congregations and that any attempt to the contrary is an attempt to thwart the divinely ordained concept of the church being the body (i.e. working parts) of the head which is Christ. My response was to the fact that if they do exist they should be under ecclesiastical authority and subject therein.


----------



## TimV

I understood that, Michael, and wasn't responding to your post.
Best
Tim


----------



## Grymir

I like them. From Focus on the Family to Ligonier Ministries. White Horse Inn to ..well, you get the idea.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

TimV said:


> I can see why they would seem to be necessary in an independent Baptistic world view, but there is no reason for their existence in a hierarchially organised church. The PCAs and OPCs and ARPs etc.. of this world are large and sophisticated enough to fulfil all the need currently (usually badly) filled by the Campus Crusades and Worldvision et. al. that we have today.


----------



## Herald

TimV said:


> The PCAs and OPCs and ARPs etc.. of this world are large and sophisticated enough to fulfil all the need currently (usually badly) filled by the Campus Crusades and Worldvision et. al. that we have today.



But do they? No. Will they? No (unless you're post-mil and you want to wait around that long).


----------



## TimV

> But do they? No. Will they? No (unless you're post-mil and you want to wait around that long).



Do they? Yes, to an extent. There's room for improvement, and it will come.
Why do you ask? Do the ends justify the means?


----------



## Herald

TimV said:


> But do they? No. Will they? No (unless you're post-mil and you want to wait around that long).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do they? Yes, to an extent. There's room for improvement, and it will come.
> Why do you ask? Do the ends justify the means?
Click to expand...


No, not at all. But not every para-church organization is a bad thing. How many churches publish on a major scale beyond their denominational distinctives or provide domestic and international adoption services? Crisis pregnancy centers? Keep in mind that many of these para-church groups are supported by churches. I have no problem with that. And like I said (half in jest), unless you're post-mil, no, it won't come. Not every two churches are alike, even in hierarchal denominations. I am not advocating that we embrace para-church organizations haphazardly or encourage them over the ministry of the local church. They should be taken on a case by case basis and supported when necessary.


----------



## TimV

> No, not at all. But not every para-church organization is a bad thing. How many churches publish on a major scale beyond their denominational distinctives or provide domestic and international adoption services?



You don't need domestic adoption services for your wife to adopt a fertilized egg. You can do it right now. Why then are you singling out adoption services to criticise the confessional Reformed denominations 



> I am not advocating that we embrace para-church organizations haphazardly or encourage them over the ministry of the local church. They should be taken on a case by case basis and supported where necessary.



Sounds kind of arbitrary. I think that they should all be part of the Church. Do you know what _para_ means?


----------



## Herald

TimV said:


> No, not at all. But not every para-church organization is a bad thing. How many churches publish on a major scale beyond their denominational distinctives or provide domestic and international adoption services?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You don't need domestic adoption services for your wife to adopt a fertilized egg. You can do it right now. Why then are you singling out adoption services to criticise the confessional Reformed denominations
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am not advocating that we embrace para-church organizations haphazardly or encourage them over the ministry of the local church. They should be taken on a case by case basis and supported where necessary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sounds kind of arbitrary. I think that they should all be part of the Church. Do you know what _para_ means?
Click to expand...


I'm not singling out reformed denominations. You singled out the "independent Baptistic world view." I'm simply saying that no church has all the bases covered. And for your information my wife and I went down the invitro road and decided against it because of the number of eggs fertilized that are never brought to term. De facto abortion.

Yes, I know what para means.


----------



## TimV

> You singled out the "independent Baptistic world view." I'm simply saying that no church has all the bases covered.



Of course I did. How could it be otherwise? How can one single congregation provide the specialty services of a whole denomination of tens of thousands? It's not reasonable to assume that one single church can.


----------



## Herald

TimV said:


> You singled out the "independent Baptistic world view." I'm simply saying that no church has all the bases covered.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course I did. How could it be otherwise? How can one single congregation provide the specialty services of a whole denomination of tens of thousands? It's not reasonable to assume that one single church can.
Click to expand...


Associations such as the SBC and CBA leverage the efforts of many like-minded churches in the areas of adoption, acts of mercy, evangelism, seminaries just to name a few. While not denominations they fulfill the mandate of scripture for churches to labor together (Acts 15; 2 Corinthians 8:18-24; Philippians 4:14-18).


----------



## TimV

> Associations such as the SBC and CBA leverage the efforts of many like-minded churches in the areas of adoption, acts of mercy, evangelism, seminaries just to name a few. While not denominations they fulfill the mandate of scripture for churches to labor together



It's been a quarter century since I've been out of Baptist circles, so forgive my ignorance, but are the SBC and CBA para church organisations?


----------



## Pergamum

MOSELLE:


Remind yourself that whole denominations let women preach and teach including some "reformed" and "presbyterian" ones - this error is not caused by parachurches.


----------



## TimV

> Remind yourself that whole denominations let women preach and teach including some "reformed" and "presbyterian" ones - this error is not caused by parachurches.



She didn't say a word about who caused it. Her question is whether it is right or not.


----------



## Pergamum

Her OP was about both women preachers in the contxt of parachurches; I am hearing little about women preachers and mostly about parachurches....


----------



## Grymir

Woman preachers - bad and unbiblical.

Women talking about things on Parachurch stuff - not bad. I mean, if I want to know more about my wife, having a woman speak on Focus on the Family or Family Life Today is priceless. And doesn't violate scripture.


----------



## Iconoclast

moselle said:


> I have noticed a couple of women (on TV) who appear to be preaching, although they are not technically shepherding a church, so to speak.
> 
> I guess I have two questions here - are parachurch organizations necessary or a good thing if their main focus is to teach/preach general scripture (as opposed to specialized Biblical teaching - apologetics, finance, or family matters, etc.)
> 
> And two, should women be the "teachers" here? They look and act like preachers behind a pulpit with a general "audience", but without sacraments or typical church order. It seems they are walking a very fine line.



The Holy Spirit had the apostle Paul write this:


> 11Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.
> 
> 12But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.
> 
> 13For Adam was first formed, then Eve.
> 
> 14And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.
> 
> 15Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.


So it does not seem as if "woman preachers" are in order. The qualifications for office bearer are for men. We live in a day of many false ideas.
The idea of false teacher's false prophets is not new.But God has not sent them. Look how Jeremiah spoke of these self sent false teachers in his day:


> 31Behold, I am against the prophets, saith the LORD, that use their tongues, and say, He saith.
> 
> 32Behold, I am against them that prophesy false dreams, saith the LORD, and do tell them, and cause my people to err by their lies, and by their lightness; yet I sent them not, nor commanded them: therefore they shall not profit this people at all, saith the LORD.


----------



## kvanlaan

But is there a point at which 'parachurch' organizations get a little too cozy with the church? Any time we become "Jesus + (insert _cause celebre_ here)", we head down a slippery slope.


----------



## kvanlaan

> Remind yourself that whole denominations let women preach and teach including some "reformed" and "presbyterian" ones - this error is not caused by parachurches.



Thanks for the "quotation" marks to keep things clear - just because they allow it does not mean it is biblical. Calvin Seminary ordains women - does their failing then obliterate scripture?


----------



## Tim

See also this thread:

http://www.puritanboard.com/f47/para-church-organizations-biblical-should-we-support-them-36013/


----------



## Pergamum

kvanlaan said:


> Remind yourself that whole denominations let women preach and teach including some "reformed" and "presbyterian" ones - this error is not caused by parachurches.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for the "quotation" marks to keep things clear - just because they allow it does not mean it is biblical. Calvin Seminary ordains women - does their failing then obliterate scripture?
Click to expand...


It obliterates the argument that this is a problem due to parachurches and not churches themselves since more women preach in churches than they do parachurches. (i.e. churches are equal, if not worse offenders in this realm)...


----------



## Herald

TimV said:


> Associations such as the SBC and CBA leverage the efforts of many like-minded churches in the areas of adoption, acts of mercy, evangelism, seminaries just to name a few. While not denominations they fulfill the mandate of scripture for churches to labor together
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's been a quarter century since I've been out of Baptist circles, so forgive my ignorance, but are the SBC and CBA para church organisations?
Click to expand...


Tim, you're missing the point. You indicated it's logical for independents to turn to para-church groups because of their limitations. I'm making a case that not all independents need do that. No other point than that.


----------



## moselle

So when it comes to parachurch women "preachers", even though they may call themselves simply teachers, they really are crossing the line of the Biblical role, yes? And this would be different from, say, a woman leading a women's bible study while under the authority of the pastor/elders of a church because she is acting under a real authority to whom she is accountable. eta: plus she is not attempting to exercise authority over men. Just trying to make sure I am thinking through this correctly!

I do enjoy several "parachurch" organizations, although I will agree that they should be few and far between and certainly flow out of a local congragation. It seems just from an organizational standpoint that locally based outreach would be far more efficient and effective.


----------



## smhbbag

> It obliterates the argument that this is a problem due to parachurches and not churches themselves since more women preach in churches than they do parachurches. (i.e. churches are equal, if not worse offenders in this realm)...



Part of the problem is with parachurches and people's attitude toward them. Sure, there are more women preaching in actual denominations, but that does not in any way mean that parachurches (or rather, typical attitudes toward them) don't cause more issues with egalitarianism than there would be otherwise.

In this area, Campus Crusade is populated and led primarily by Southern Baptists. The leader of CCC in our area belongs to a very conservative Baptist church with a strong dose of reformed people in it. Neither he nor his church would ever consider a woman preaching on Sunday morning. Yet, women regularly are featured speakers and teachers of men at his CCC gatherings. The justification? "This is not the church."

Of course, most of these people probably internally struggle with the limitations scripture places on women in ministry, and wish it were not the case. The parachurch gives them an excuse to do ministry more 'freely,' and not be limited in the same way the real church is, in their mind.

This has a very real effect on people who sit under this ministry. After a woman preaches at one of these gatherings, the general attitude by people who consider it in light of these issues is: "Hmm, that wasn't so bad. I don't see what the big deal is with women preaching occasionally in church." And then spoonful by spoonful, they ingest the entire evangelical feminist load of malarkey. I've seen this process in real people I know, and it was hard to watch. Without the parachurch and its supposed separation from Biblical offices and requirements, these people may not have been led astray. Granted, that is not an argument against the parachurch itself, but it is an argument that we need to be very skeptical of ministries who answer only to themselves.


----------



## kvanlaan

> It obliterates the argument that this is a problem due to parachurches and not churches themselves since more women preach in churches than they do parachurches. (i.e. churches are equal, if not worse offenders in this realm)...



Sadly, this is probably true.


----------



## Pergamum

smhbbag said:


> It obliterates the argument that this is a problem due to parachurches and not churches themselves since more women preach in churches than they do parachurches. (i.e. churches are equal, if not worse offenders in this realm)...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Part of the problem is with parachurches and people's attitude toward them. Sure, there are more women preaching in actual denominations, but that does not in any way mean that parachurches (or rather, typical attitudes toward them) don't cause more issues with egalitarianism than there would be otherwise.
> 
> In this area, Campus Crusade is populated and led primarily by Southern Baptists. The leader of CCC in our area belongs to a very conservative Baptist church with a strong dose of reformed people in it. Neither he nor his church would ever consider a woman preaching on Sunday morning. Yet, women regularly are featured speakers and teachers of men at his CCC gatherings. The justification? "This is not the church."
> 
> Of course, most of these people probably internally struggle with the limitations scripture places on women in ministry, and wish it were not the case. The parachurch gives them an excuse to do ministry more 'freely,' and not be limited in the same way the real church is, in their mind.
> 
> This has a very real effect on people who sit under this ministry. After a woman preaches at one of these gatherings, the general attitude by people who consider it in light of these issues is: "Hmm, that wasn't so bad. I don't see what the big deal is with women preaching occasionally in church." And then spoonful by spoonful, they ingest the entire evangelical feminist load of malarkey. I've seen this process in real people I know, and it was hard to watch. Without the parachurch and its supposed separation from Biblical offices and requirements, these people may not have been led astray. Granted, that is not an argument against the parachurch itself, but it is an argument that we need to be very skeptical of ministries who answer only to themselves.
Click to expand...


I have heard a woman speak about linguistics at a parachurch gathering (on a saturday and a tuesday), and another speak about family issues on the mission field, and another speak about culture shock and culture stress and member care, and another give her testimony of overcoming sexual abuse - all very good talks somewhat related to the Bible and using even Bible verses. 

But, you know what!? It wasn't the church and I benefitted from these practical talks just like I would from a female professor of history. On Sunday morning all of these people that I know of want to churches that would not advocate female preachers (we were in the same cohort, so I know) while 100 meters from the building where this parachurch talk was given a female pastor preached at the local Presbyterian church.

All gatherings about religious topics are not church services and yes, these parachurches are right, "We are not the church." 

However, I do agree that preaching in any venue is still preaching but I have never heard a woman preach except in a Methodist church as a teenager, and never in a parachurch.


My assertion is that if you want to fight women preachers, take it up with the mainline denominations, they are equal if not bigger offenders than the parachurch.


----------



## smhbbag

> My assertion is that if you want to fight women preachers, take it up with the mainline denominations, they are equal if not bigger offenders than the parachurch.



I wholeheartedly agree that this battle will be won or lost in the denominations, not the parachurches, and that should be our area of focus. But that was not your assertion. I also grant that denominations bigger offenders, probably by orders of magnitude.

You said this problem was not "due" to the parachurches, and that is a different thing altogether. My assertion is that though they are not the main cause of problems with evangelical feminism, they can and do contribute significantly. You said this problem is not due to them - my assertion is that it partially is, because situations like I described magnify and spread problems that are already there.


----------



## Pergamum

You have already granted my main point. I cannot deny that many parachurches are pretty bad and so now I grant your point.


----------



## smhbbag

> You have already granted my main point. I cannot deny that many parachurches are pretty bad and so now I grant your point.





But handshakes seem so unfriendly. How about


----------



## Pergamum

Let's keep it with the handshake tonight....I've already had too much coffee and am getting a caffeine buzz....a beer smiley will put me over the edge (friends don't let friends PB under the influence).


----------



## smhbbag

See, caffeine is a stimulant. Alcohol as a depressant will just bring you right back to normal


----------

