# Para Church Ministries?



## Deleted member 7239 (Aug 24, 2017)

How would a confessional believer view "parachurch ministries" such as Young Life, Cru, etc. Although not usually Reformed-- these organizations do reach the unchurched with the message of the Gospel-- are they competing with the church or aiding in the mission of the church?


----------



## Scott Bushey (Aug 24, 2017)

Hi Jesse,
I believe many here on PB would not be against para-church. in my opinion, I do not like a ministry that does not have an overseeing, governing body. So, if it has a governing body and is not independent of one, I guess I would be ok with it. If it is independent, no. You will notice that most PCM's are credo-baptist.

Are they aiding the church? Does a biblical church need help?

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## jw (Aug 24, 2017)

Has the King ordered His Kingdom, or left it to the inventions and accretions of men?

In the last chapter of Matthew we see the delegation of authority. "All power is given unto me [Christ] in heaven and in earth. Go ye [the Apostles, and by extension, ministers and elders thereafter], therefore . . ." What did Christ purchase by His incarnation, perfection of obedience, death, and resurrection? Amongst other things, this authority in meting out His Kingdom. In Acts 1, we read:

The former treatise have I made, O Theophilus, of all that Jesus began both to do and teach, until the day in which he was taken up, after that he through the Holy Ghost _had given commandments_ unto the *apostles* whom *he had chosen*: to whom also he shewed himself alive after his passion by many infallible proofs, being seen of them forty days, and _speaking of the things pertaining to the _*kingdom of God*.​We see this practiced and worked out throughout the book of Acts, wherein the Apostles -as directed by Christ- ordain and vet men to the ministry, and said men are brought under authority. Authority of whom? Christ, as the King of His Kingdom, under the authority of His apostles, and subsequently elders, etc. with presbyterial commissions, meetings, and accounts.

What are the gifts given to men by the work of Christ? Ephesians 4 is clear:

Wherefore he saith, When he ascended up on high, he led captivity captive, and gave gifts unto men. (Now that he ascended, what is it but that he also descended first into the lower parts of the earth? He that descended is the same also that ascended up far above all heavens, that he might fill all things.) And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; for the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ​Christ has ordered His Kingdom, as King of His Kingdom. _The Ministry_ is under the auspices of His Kingdom, the Church. The Ministry of Reconciliation properly was given to the Apostles, and subsequently pastors and elders. The ministry of service (in its official capacity), to the diaconate. The service of brothers and sisters in the visible church one to another, not as office-bearing duties, but expressions of the [super]natural affection that we ought to have in our obedience to God by serving men (the 2nd table of the law).

Parachurch "ministries" are no such "ministry" authorized by Christ. They are -regardless of good intentions- by default, competitors, and the King brooks no competitors. They are those who run, but are not sent. They are not under authority and have no consequential accountability. The King orders His Kingdom. He knows how best to build it. Let us lay our wills, talents, treasures, and good intentions at His feet, seeking obedience to His commandments, and leave the secret things to Him.

Reactions: Like 3 | Amen 1


----------



## Deleted member 7239 (Aug 24, 2017)

I appreciate helping me think through this. Your thoughts on this example:

A Christian rescue mission for homeless men which takes men in overnight and they hear the word preached by ordained ministers.

Would you agree with this as long as those who are preaching are ordained? I guess this caveat would apply to any parachurch-- having ordained men overseeing it? Thoughts?


----------



## BGF (Aug 24, 2017)

Joshua, I agree with your answer. I wonder though, how would you answer possible objections that use the following parallel accounts? 



> John said to him, “Teacher, we saw someone casting out demons in your name, and we tried to stop him, because he was not following us.” But Jesus said, “Do not stop him, for no one who does a mighty work in my name will be able soon afterward to speak evil of me. For the one who is not against us is for us. For truly, I say to you, whoever gives you a cup of water to drink because you belong to Christ will by no means lose his reward.
> Mark 9:38-41





> John answered, “Master, we saw someone casting out demons in your name, and we tried to stop him, because he does not follow with us.” But Jesus said to him, “Do not stop him, for the one who is not against you is for you.”
> Luke 9:49 & 50



Assuming that the objector sees these passages as justification for ministry apart from the church.


----------



## Dachaser (Aug 24, 2017)

Scott Bushey said:


> Hi Jesse,
> I believe many here on PB would not be against para-church. in my opinion, I do not like a ministry that does not have an overseeing, governing body. So, if it has a governing body and is not independent of one, I guess I would be ok with it. If it is independent, no. You will notice that most PCM's are credo-baptist.
> 
> Are they aiding the church? Does a biblical church need help?


I think that they do a valid ministry with the Body of Christ, as while they do not directly compete with the local churches, they can assist them in reaching out and maturing the Christians.
Also, would prefer them to from either a Reformed or a Calvinist perspective on their doctrines.


----------



## KeithW (Aug 24, 2017)

Romans5eight said:


> ...are they competing with the church or aiding in the mission of the church?


This should be answered based on a particular parachurch organization, not by lumping every one of them together as a whole.

By "church" I assume you mean the visible church usually characterized as a local assembly which meets in a building, has a pastor, has elders, members, etc. The local church often cannot do (or does not do) every last bit of "the mission of the church". Now what? And who is doing this extra work?

And what do you mean by "competing"? If a parachurch organization is undermining the Gospel of Jesus Christ by preaching something else and doing it while using the name Christian then yes it is a bad thing. If a parachurch is drawing people away from the local church then it is a bad thing. I have specific examples of these in mind.

I heard one parachurch ministry (which I follow) recently explain their governance. They have a board of directors unto whom every member is accountable. No one can be a member of the ministry unless they are a churchman first and foremost -- unless they are a member of a local church, in good standing, attend regularly, not under discipline, and under the authority of the local church. The work of this ministry is to take the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and Reformed theology, to non-Christian groups, and to point them to the local church. So in this case like minded Christians from many different churches are involved in a particular ministry which no one particular church can do. Are they competing with the "church"?



Romans5eight said:


> A Christian rescue mission for homeless men which takes men in overnight and they hear the word preached by ordained ministers.


Are they competing with the local church who is also giving the homeless a place to sleep? Too much help is being given?! I assume this happens every night. Does the local church preach every night so this ministry is competing with them in this regard? Are they directing people to the local church or drawing them away from the local church? Are the Christians involved in this ministry members of local churches?

Another example. There is a worldwide non-denominational Bible study organization which has meetings in my city. Groups meet midweek and are open to Christians from all Christian denominations. If my local church is so small that it does not have a permanent building (they don't), nor have the means to teach Scripture midweek (they don't), should I not go to this parachurch organization because they are "competing" with "the church"? (In all honesty I don't go to that one, I go to a midweek Bible study in a church of a different non-Reformed denomination. They have the means to perform this benefit for Christians.)

These are examples of considering the practical working out of "the mission of the church". Evaluate what different parachurch organizations are doing. Don't let "theology" prevent work being done which the local church cannot, or is not doing.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Aug 24, 2017)

I guess my issue rests in the idea that these movements are 'beside' the church instead of a 'ministry of xyz Church'. Granted, many of these efforts address issues that most churches do not. 
Why can they not be directly related to a local denom? There seems to be a propensity for independency within para church organizations and as a few people made mention, church polity is biblical and no actual local church oversite, problematic. Get attached and solve the issue!

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## jw (Aug 24, 2017)

BGF said:


> Joshua, I agree with your answer. I wonder though, how would you answer possible objections that use the following parallel accounts?
> 
> Assuming that the objector sees these passages as justification for ministry apart from the church.


I have not spent much time at all considering those passages, and am also reminded of the exchange between Moses and Joshua in Numbers 11 when I read them (as well as Paul's rejoicing that Christ was being preached, regardless of the intent behind those preaching). I plan to spend some time reading about those. My initial thoughts are that they're unique circumstances surrounding particular times in redemptive history and not a _rule_ as to how the Kingdom is grown. Christ would not have the apostles go and forbid the man from doing this, nor is this casting out of demons necessarily a sign of regeneration (Matthew 7.22), but neither did he tell the disciples, "Go and follow him." 

That is not intended to be an airtight answer, nor am I looking for one for the sake of being _right_. I would much rather be corrected if I am out of line on this, and convinced of such by the Scriptures. We also do not want to let reading (or _mis_reading) providence determine our practice, especially when we have explicitly clear light (in the passages I have referenced above) as to how the King has ordered His Kingdom. Just because some "ministry" has been successful by the secret workings of God, does not mean He has authorized us to use such things without command in Scripture. 

I suppose -before we can get into a proper discussion- we must define things like _church_ and _ministry_. Providing shelter for the homeless is no doubt a good work, provided that it is not prolonged for those who are a part of that circumstance simply because they refuse to work, etc. The same can be said for other works of mercy that are performed outside of the umbrella of the church. But when we begin to call such things "parachurch ministries," this is where we must be careful. Preaching and making disciples are -by definition- _churchly_ functions, carried out by those commissioned thereunto. The service of the diaconate _primarily_ to those within the church, are also _churchly_ functions, and under the authority of the local session (who are under the authority of the presbytery, etc.).

I would not seek to dissuade men from doing good works, works of mercy, so on so forth. In fact, these are parts of our overall duty to God in this life; however, we must distinguish between those things and what the Apostle calls the "Ministry of Reconciliation," covering the ministry of Word & Sacraments.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Gforce9 (Aug 24, 2017)

Scott Bushey said:


> I guess my issue rests in the idea that these movements are 'beside' the church instead of a 'ministry of xyz Church'. Granted, many of these efforts address issues that most churches do not.
> Why can they not be directly related to a local denom? There seems to be a propensity for independency within para church organizations and as a few people made mention, church polity is biblical and no actual local church oversite, problematic. Get attached and solve the issue!



I think you nailed it, Scott.....the propensity toward independency.


----------



## Deleted member 7239 (Aug 24, 2017)

Scott Bushey said:


> I guess my issue rests in the idea that these movements are 'beside' the church instead of a 'ministry of xyz Church'. Granted, many of these efforts address issues that most churches do not.
> Why can they not be directly related to a local denom? There seems to be a propensity for independency within para church organizations and as a few people made mention, church polity is biblical and no actual local church oversite, problematic. Get attached and solve the issue!



The main reason parachurch organizations aren't denominational is because most boards of directors are from differing denominations. For example, the rescue mission I am referring to is ran by baptists, presbyterians, and non-denominational believers. They don't agree on some sacramental issues that make it necessary to worship at different locations on Sunday, but we all agree that homeless men need the gospel and a place to sleep. Or a women's crisis center that is led by women for the same reasons. 

Much like the puritan board, it is made of different denominations, but fills a need that pastors and deacons can't fully address on their own.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Aug 24, 2017)

Romans5eight said:


> The main reason parachurch organizations aren't denominational is because most boards of directors are from differing denominations. For example, the rescue mission I am referring to is ran by baptists, presbyterians, and non-denominational believers. They don't agree on some sacramental issues that make it necessary to worship at different locations on Sunday, but we all agree that homeless men need the gospel and a place to sleep. Or a women's crisis center that is led by women for the same reasons.



The above does not rail against these groups being attached to any actual denomination/church. Churches have men from outside a particular denomination that are involved. Most churches have budding relationships with the churches in their respective areas.



> Much like the puritan board, it is made of different denominations, but fills a need that pastors and deacons can't fully address on their own.



PB is not a parachurch ministry. It's a place to hang out and dicuss theology. Theres a big difference.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Deleted member 7239 (Aug 24, 2017)

Scott Bushey said:


> The above does not rail against these groups being attached to any actual denomination/church. Churches have men from outside a particular denomination that are involved. Most churches have budding relationships with the churches in their respective areas.
> 
> 
> 
> PB is not a parachurch ministry. It's a place to hang out and dicuss theology. Theres a big difference.



I agree with you. I guess I am just trying to define what actual activities are the work of the Church's officers alone and what can be done by an organized group of believers you could call a parachurch. Example: Feeding the poor can be done by a private believer, but not administering baptism. This same guideline would apply to groups of christians working together, right?


----------



## Scott Bushey (Aug 24, 2017)

Romans5eight said:


> I agree with you. I guess I am just trying to define what actual activities are the work of the Church's officers alone and what can be done by an organized group of believers you could call a parachurch. Example: Feeding the poor can be done by a private believer, but not administering baptism. This same guideline would apply to groups of christians working together, right?



Nothing should be done outside of the local church. Everyone submits to the leadership of their particular congregations. If there is a group of believers gathering locally, from different denominations, this does not change the biblical need for over site; each man is officially being over seen by their respective churches. Which brings me back to the original complaint, that being that the organization itself would benefit being attached as well.


----------



## Deleted member 7239 (Aug 24, 2017)

Scott Bushey said:


> Nothing should be done outside of the local church. Everyone submits to the leadership of their particular congregations. If there is a group of believers gathering locally, from different denominations, this does not change the biblical need for over site; each man is officially being over seen by their respective churches. Which brings me back to the original complaint, that being that the organization itself would benefit being attached as well.



Yes I agree that we are all an extension of the visible church. I don't know how the logistics would work of churches exercising oversight in a privately funded parachurch. It seems like many parachurches are functioning more like a business than a church, which seems okay since they aren't a church. 

Should we view parachurches more like a Christian business? They provide a service and aren't a church, so why be under church oversight?


----------



## bookslover (Aug 24, 2017)

It's possible that God Himself raises up parachurch organizations to do tasks that the church either can't perform or won't perform.


----------



## Dachaser (Aug 24, 2017)

bookslover said:


> It's possible that God Himself raises up parachurch organizations to do tasks that the church either can't perform or won't perform.



I think that when they are functioning in a biblical way, that the Lord uses them to complement and assist the local churches.


----------



## yeutter (Aug 24, 2017)

Ratio Christi, InterVarcity Christian Fellowship, Campus Crusade for Christ, and Navigators are the three main para-Church groups that operate on college campuses. 

Do the staff members, of any of these groups, tell Roman Catholic students who have professed faith in Christ; that they should start attending and make profession of faith in a faithful Bible preaching Church?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Deleted member 7239 (Aug 24, 2017)

yeutter said:


> Ratio Christi, InterVarcity Christian Fellowship, Campus Crusade for Christ, and Navigators are the three main para-Church groups that operate on college campuses.
> 
> Do the staff members, of any of these groups, tell Roman Catholic students who have professed faith in Christ; that they should start attending and make profession of faith in a faithful Bible preaching Church?



I think staff members vary just like members of any denomination. I'm sure there are elders of reformed churches that would vary in their approach to ministering to Roman Catholics or members of any church in error.


----------



## earl40 (Aug 24, 2017)

What is a church, or its ordained to do? By answering this question each official office holder (TE RE and deacon) one can see a para-"church" organization is simply unbiblical.

Where the confusion arises is when those that hold to such a position are seen as against the laity doing good works outside the church (common grace) as conferring saving grace. BTW I see the TE as the only office holder that should dispense saving grace, and the RE and deacons should be doing the common things so as the TE can be free to dispense his charge.


----------



## Deleted member 7239 (Aug 24, 2017)

earl40 said:


> What is a church, or its ordained to do? By answering this question each official office holder (TE RE and deacon) one can see a para-"church" organization is simply unbiblical.
> 
> Where the confusion arises is when those that hold to such a position are seen as against the laity doing good works outside the church (common grace) as conferring saving grace. BTW I see the TE as the only office holder that should dispense saving grace, and the RE and deacons should be doing the common things so as the TE can be free to dispense his charge.


I honestly have never heard the term "dispense saving grace"--can you explain what that practically means so I understand your position? They are the only ones who should share the Gospel, or the only ones to declare someone saved?


----------



## earl40 (Aug 24, 2017)

Romans5eight said:


> I honestly have never heard the term "dispense saving grace"--can you explain what that practically means so I understand your position? They are the only ones who should share the Gospel, or the only ones to declare someone saved?



How will they believe unless a preacher is sent? In our culture of today it is common belief that many are saved by their next door neighbor who is a plummer or an ultrasound technician.


----------



## Deleted member 7239 (Aug 24, 2017)

earl40 said:


> How will they believe unless a preacher is sent? In our culture of today it is common belief that many are saved by their next door neighbor who is a plummer or an ultrasound technician.



I see what you are saying, but you can't deny that people are regenerated apart from hearing an ordained teaching elder preach. I would say that most of us are. How would a non-believer unwittingly find himself in a church pew on a Sunday morning to have saving grace dispensed to him? I thought we would say that he is dead in his sin and wouldn't willingly seek out a sermon. Where am I wrong on this?


----------



## Scott Bushey (Aug 24, 2017)

Romans5eight said:


> Yes I agree that we are all an extension of the visible church. I don't know how the logistics would work of churches exercising oversight in a privately funded parachurch.



Well ultimately, each local church is responsible for it's members.



> It seems like many parachurches are functioning more like a business than a church, which seems okay since they aren't a church. I've confused myself...





earl40 said:


> How will they believe unless a preacher is sent? In our culture of today it is common belief that many are saved by their next door neighbor who is a plummer or an ultrasound technician.



The scriptures tell us differently. Preaching is a characteristic of an office holder only. My sharing with my neighbor is not one and the same. Can a man be saved by my sharing, yes. Most everyone knows the gospel here in the states. But it is not 'preaching'. The means of grace are solely distributed by the office holder.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Edward (Aug 24, 2017)

yeutter said:


> Ratio Christi, InterVarcity Christian Fellowship, Campus Crusade for Christ, and Navigators are the three



That looks like 4. I'm unfamiliar with the first one named.


----------



## Edward (Aug 24, 2017)

earl40 said:


> How will they believe unless a preacher is sent?



Where is that found in the scriptures?


----------



## Scott Bushey (Aug 24, 2017)

I would imagine Earl would cite Romans 10:

14 How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?

15 And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things!

_The Holy Bible: King James Version_, Electronic Edition of the 1900 Authorized Version. (Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 2009), Ro 10:15.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Deleted member 7239 (Aug 24, 2017)

The question of every member evangelism is one that great men disagree on. T David Gordon and R Fowler White both had great articles on this and they disagree.

I see merit in both of their arguments.


----------



## yeutter (Aug 24, 2017)

Edward said:


> That looks like 4. I'm unfamiliar with the first one named.


Edward, you are right, I didn't count accurately. 

As to your question about Ratio Christi, it is a campus apologetics alliance; that seeks to equip students to give philosophical, scientific, and historical reasons for believing in and following Jesus Christ. The focus of the organization is not so much fellowship, or discipleship as it is to demonstrate that Christianity is intellectually defensible. Ratio Christi seeks to give Christian Students good reason for believing in God's existence, the reliability of Scripture, and the factual nature of Christ's bodily resurrection from the grave.

On some campuses Ratio Christi draws from the same pool of students who might have joined IV. As IV has changed directions in recent years Ratio Christi has continued to set forth the case that it is reasonable to believe in the Gospel. Ratio Christi's focus is on defending mere Christianity not on being missional or transformational.

I do not have a problem with what Ratio Christi stands for. I am concerned with the number of Roman Catholic students that seem to be drawn to it. That may be a reflection on the change in the Church of Rome. She no longer warns her students away from Protestant oriented groups. Her Newman Societies are all but defunct on many campuses. She no longer is keen to ground her students in the philosophy of St. Thomas Aquinas and St. Anselm. 

I doubt that the staff, and faculty advisors of Ratio Christi or by and large most of the other para-Church groups are pointing out to students their need to ground themselves spiritually, and their need to affiliate with a Bible believing, Bible preaching Church. This is one reason I have doubts about the appropriateness of supporting para-Church groups.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## yeutter (Aug 24, 2017)

Here is a link to Ratio Christi. https://ratiochristi.org


----------



## Edward (Aug 24, 2017)

yeutter said:


> Ratio Christi



I just googled it and saw that it was less than 10 years old, which might explain my ignorance; but I see that they have one at SMU, and while it isn't in my circle, I do overlap with folks that do have it within their circle.


----------



## earl40 (Aug 25, 2017)

Romans5eight said:


> I see what you are saying, but you can't deny that people are regenerated apart from hearing an ordained teaching elder preach. I would say that most of us are. How would a non-believer unwittingly find himself in a church pew on a Sunday morning to have saving grace dispensed to him? I thought we would say that he is dead in his sin and wouldn't willingly seek out a sermon. Where am I wrong on this?



What I have found interesting is that most of the believers I know, if not all of them, were and are being saved by ordained TE's. I understand many adult converts think they were justified by a conversation with a person who is not ordained, but the fact of the matter is that scripture teaches that the means of salvation is for those who are sent, and it was not you or I who have those beautiful feet. I understand this is a touchy area and has massive ramifications on ones view of para-"church" and if one ought to be a part of such.


----------



## Deleted member 7239 (Aug 25, 2017)

earl40 said:


> What I have found interesting is that most of the believers I know, if not all of them, were and are being saved by ordained TE's. I understand many adult converts think they were justified by a conversation with a person who is not ordained, but the fact of the matter is that scripture teaches that the means of salvation is for those who are sent, and it was not you or I who have those beautiful feet. I understand this is a touchy area and has massive ramifications on ones view of para-"church" and if one ought to be a part of such.





earl40 said:


> What I have found interesting is that most of the believers I know, if not all of them, were and are being saved by ordained TE's. I understand many adult converts think they were justified by a conversation with a person who is not ordained, but the fact of the matter is that scripture teaches that the means of salvation is for those who are sent, and it was not you or I who have those beautiful feet. I understand this is a touchy area and has massive ramifications on ones view of para-"church" and if one ought to be a part of such.



I can't say that I agree with you on that belief. I wonder how many even on the PB would agree that ordained teaching elders alone can "confer saving grace"---I wouldn't say any person other than God "confers" saving grace. 

Are you basing your belief on Rom. 10 and the fact that the New Testament records mainly the activity of the apostles who would be considered ordained teaching elders?


----------



## Scott Bushey (Aug 25, 2017)

Jesse,
I agree w/ earl here. Most on PB would as well. The biblical means would be that the elders are appointed to confer the means of grace. Whenever we see the word 'preach' in scripture, it is used in relation to the office and the characteristics that accompany such an office.


----------



## earl40 (Aug 25, 2017)

Romans5eight said:


> I can't say that I agree with you on that belief. I wonder how many even on the PB would agree that ordained teaching elders alone can "confer saving grace"---I wouldn't say any person other than God "confers" saving grace.
> 
> Are you basing your belief on Rom. 10 and the fact that the New Testament records mainly the activity of the apostles who would be considered ordained teaching elders?



Yes I am basing my assumptions on Romans 10.  Is there any other scriptural basis to assume the contrary?


----------



## Deleted member 7239 (Aug 25, 2017)

Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but are you guys saying that when a middle-school student comes to Christ at a school bible study or camp, all of those regenerations are null until he hears the gospel from an ordained TE? Wouldn't the authority of scripture alone be sufficient to save or does the Holy Spirit need a TE?


----------



## Gforce9 (Aug 25, 2017)

I will go on record and say I believe the minister is God's ordained mouthpiece for the gospel. Each and every Lord's Day he teaches and preaches the counsel of God, which has contained in it, God's holy requirement and His gracious posture toward sinners in the gospel. God has appointed the church government for a good reason and it, like any of His institutions, should be heeded by all. The Confession informs us that God may work above and beyond means as pleases Him, but that He primarily works through the means of grace, through His appointed ministers of grace........


----------



## Scott Bushey (Aug 25, 2017)

Jesse,
Most times, these people that u describe have been in a church where the gospel has been presented; in the back of their minds are these truths that have been faithfully proclaimed. In real time, when a person gives witness to these facts at an arbitrary time are just refreshing what the person already has onboard, or reiterating what the person already knows. People cannot be saved outside of the official means of grace.


----------



## jw (Aug 25, 2017)

I am saying that duty is ours; God's secret workings are His (Deut. 29.29).

The Lord -in the execution of His providence- may (and has) work above, against, below, apart, atop, without, beneath, under, within, beyond, or through His means which He has appointed for _us_ to use. No one can rightly say to Him, "What doest Thou?" But that is neither here nor there as to what my duty is. My duty is what God has prescribed for man in Scripture, and none else. Has the Lord converted people apart from the preaching of a man commissioned, vetted, and examined by a presbytery? Sure. Does that, then, give me leave -because God has worked in His own way- to take up the place of God and ignore what His commands are for me? May it never be. 

The Lord rebukes from the mouth of an ass. Does that mean I go looking for talking asses? No. He may send men "strong delusion, that they should believe a lie," (2 Thess. 2.11). Are we free to do that? Of course not. We have the Lord's prescribed means, let us busy ourselves with those. He has not revealed to us His secret workings of providence. We'll watch them unfold as they do. Let us consider how God -in His secret providence- raised up enemies to defeat and humble Israel, but then later, punished and destroyed those very enemies He himself stirred up! The Lord has His ways, and He is perfectly justified in whatsoever He does, and howsoever He does it. We, on the other hand, are beholden to His commandments and prescriptions.

Reactions: Edifying 1


----------



## Deleted member 7239 (Aug 25, 2017)

I appreciate your answers. To understand both sides of this--would one side say that the message of the Gospel is the means of salvation and the Reformed side would say that the pastor is the ordained means of grace?


----------



## Gforce9 (Aug 25, 2017)

No. The means are the word read and preached and the sacraments administers rightly. The minister is the appointed man to discharge those duties.....
One "side" says we submit ourselves to this. The other "side" says with Frank Sinatra "I did it my way".....


----------



## Deleted member 7239 (Aug 25, 2017)

Have any of you read the R Fowler White article on the Opc website? He gives biblical grounds for his position.

By the way, whatever position is true is what I'm interested in. If you guys are right I want to agree with you. Thanks for helping me think through this.


----------



## Gforce9 (Aug 25, 2017)

Romans5eight said:


> I think that was Frank Sinatra.
> 
> Have any of you read the R Fowler White article on the Opc website? He gives biblical grounds for his position.
> 
> By the way, whatever position is true is what I'm interested in. If you guys are right I want to agree with you. Thanks for helping me think through this.



I stand corrected...I knew it was on of those old guys! I have not read the article. Something that helped me come to the position I hold is this: if the playing field is level (ie. everyone is a minister), then the office distinctions are irrelevant. Whether the Rev. Robert Tarullo, for example, is preaching the word and administering the sacraments or Greg Seul is, it is mostly irrelevant. The only "benefit" from the ordained minister is that he knows a little more than I do......

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Deleted member 7239 (Aug 25, 2017)

I see your point. I think in a lot of people's minds, including mine, the minister is the man ordained to build up the body of Christ as they preach and administer the means of grace. We benefit greatly from their work, as believers. As non-ordained believers, we live our lives before the world and tell everyone we can about Christ and his word. The conversion is left to God alone.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## jw (Aug 25, 2017)

Romans5eight said:


> Have any of you read the R Fowler White article on the Opc website? He gives biblical grounds for his position.


I haven't seen a link to it.


----------



## Deleted member 7239 (Aug 25, 2017)

I don't think we would say "I know what the Bible teaches, but I'm doing this my way"

I think we are trying to live our lives in the service of Christ and it's hard not to tell the lost about him. I think it's against our nature to keep it to ourselves.


----------



## Deleted member 7239 (Aug 25, 2017)

http://opc.org/os.html?article_id=193


----------



## Deleted member 7239 (Aug 25, 2017)

Here's the original T David Gordon article if interested

https://opc.org/os.html?article_id=155


----------



## jw (Aug 25, 2017)

Romans5eight said:


> I don't think we would say "I know what the Bible teaches, but I'm doing this my way"
> 
> I think we are trying to live our lives in the service of Christ and it's hard not to tell the lost about him. I think it's against our nature to keep it to ourselves.


Not only should it prove difficult "not to tell the lost about" Christ, but it is every Christian's duty according to place, station, and ability. The problem is in the equating "telling the lost about [Christ]" with _Evangelism_, _ministry_, _preaching_, etc. The two are not the same. By all lawful means, we should give a word in season, tell others the great things Christ has done for us, be ready to give an answer for the hope we have within us, be excellent in our callings as an adornment to our profession, etc.; yet, these things are not "the ministry of reconciliation," or qualifying us as those official "ambassadors of Christ," or the preaching of the Word. Egalitarianism and "threshold Christianity" decisionalism are great contributing factors to this confusion.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## BGF (Aug 25, 2017)

This article about the difference between ministers and laymen covers much of the arguments here.

Daniel Featley was answering the anabaptists who argued in favor of what we now call "every member ministry".

https://purelypresbyterian.com/2017/08/25/difference-between-ministers-and-laymen/

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## jw (Aug 25, 2017)

BGF said:


> This article about the difference between ministers and laymen covers much of the arguments here.
> 
> Daniel Featley was answering the anabaptists who argued in favor of what we now call "every member ministry".
> 
> https://purelypresbyterian.com/2017/08/25/difference-between-ministers-and-laymen/


Much related, in Volume 2 of R.L. Dabney's _Discussions _(pp. 76-95), are some outstanding thoughts on "Lay" Ministry.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Deleted member 7239 (Aug 25, 2017)

Okay, I still am not sure what activities by laypeople you guys would consider good or bad.

Good: to tell people about Christ
Bad: To call it evangelism?

I don't think anyone is advocating for laypeople baptizing or preaching in public worship, but we are saying that all believers should bear witness to Christ and the Gospel. But not in a way that competes with the visible church. People are saved by hearing the word of Christ and that can come from simply reading a Bible or hearing it from a Christian. True regeneration will lead them to the visible church. Christians are an extension of the preaching ministry they sit under.


----------



## jw (Aug 25, 2017)

Romans5eight said:


> I don't think anyone is advocating for laypeople baptizing or preaching in public worship, but we are saying that all believers should bear witness to Christ and the Gospel. Just not to do this in a way that competes with the visible church. People are saved by hearing the word of Christ and that can come from simply reading a Bible or hearing it from a Christian. True regeneration will lead them to the visible church.


You paraphrase Romans 10 when you say "by hearing the word of Christ," and -yet- if you look in the context of that passage, it is bound up in _preaching_, by _preachers_, who are _sent_. Also, we must weary of this concept of "saved" which puts it as a matter that we each are able definitively to discern a decisive point of regeneration, repentance toward God, and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ. It may not be self-evident for some time. The hearing, believing, being baptized, and the communion of saints are all bound up in the same area. And the prescription for these things, ordinarily, is within the ministry of the Church.

Has the Lord been pleased to regenerate a man at times by them merely reading Scripture, with the Spirit working on, in, and through his heart? Sure. Yet, again, God's secret workings in His providence outside of the prescribe means is no standard, rule, or command for what we _*ought*_ to do. We do not take upon ourselves to see the secret providence of God work itself out and, therefrom, make it our own practice. Instead, we rejoice that the Lord has apparently brought someone from death into life in that way, helping whomever it is rightly to come under authority and leadership, and continue to execute "the ministry" by God's means prescribed to us.

If we would begin to move away from the modern concept of decisionalism and "threshold" Christianity and -instead- understand the larger picture of what it means to be a part of the Visible Church, in all its ordinances, accountability, service, etc. and that men -through regular and repeated exposure to the Gospel- understand their need of Christ _today_, _now_, and _forever_, perhaps much of this kind of _each one reach one_ mentality would become irrelevant, not putting pressure on those who have no such gifts or calling to "go out of their comfort zone" attempting to take up responsibilities that -not only are not theirs- but belong to those who have been gifted with, examined for, called, and commissioned thereunto. (How's _that_ for a run on sentence?)

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## BGF (Aug 25, 2017)

Joshua, I gotta say, I think you nailed that one. I was in the process of typing similar thoughts on the modern emphasis on "decisions" when, by accident, I refreshed and saw your post. It was better than mine so I deleted.

Reactions: Like 1 | Edifying 1


----------



## jw (Aug 25, 2017)

BGF said:


> Joshua, I gotta say, I think you nailed that one. I was in the process of typing similar thoughts on the modern emphasis on "decisions" when, by accident, I refreshed and saw your post. It was better than mine so I deleted.


Brother, my thinking was so long a product of this idea (decisionalism) that there is no telling how much a detriment it was to my endeavors toward holiness for many years of my professing Christian life. In fact, the remnants of it still haunt me to this day as I consider the residue of corruption that I still battle in my heart. As bad as I perceive things to be with myself to this day, I shudder to think of how it would be if, around 9 years ago, I had not come under a more regular and sound exposure to the biblical understanding of endurance and being kept by Christ's intercession on that bedrock of His justification until the final day. So much presumption is bound up in decisionalism and the grave detriment it has been to the large-scale understanding of Christianity in our day is lamentable. That is an easy target, but self-examination is more painful and so -while I can harp on this particular issue with ease- the real challenge is for me to make application in my own life.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## BGF (Aug 25, 2017)

Joshua said:


> Brother, my thinking was so long a product of this idea (decisionalism) that there is no telling how much a detriment it was to my endeavors toward holiness for many years of my professing Christian life. In fact, the remnants of it still haunt me to this day as I consider the residue of corruption that I still battle in my heart. As bad as I perceive things to be with myself to this day, I shudder to think of how it would be if, around 9 years ago, I had not come under a more regular and sound exposure to the biblical understanding of endurance and being kept by Christ's intercession on that bedrock of His justification until the final day. So much presumption is bound up in decisionalism and the grave detriment it has been to the large-scale understanding of Christianity in our day is lamentable. That is an easy target, but self-examination is more painful and so -while I can harp on this particular issue with ease- the real challenge is for me to make application in my own life.


Yes, and yes. As it relates to the OP, I am much relieved that I don't have the burden to do that which I am not called to do, and much chastened when I arrogantly presume to do the same.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Deleted member 7239 (Aug 25, 2017)

I understand your viewpoints, but I do think we shouldn't over-correct the problem of decisional Christianity. We should focus on our duty to share Christ with all that we can. 

So I am not going to wait for my pastor to talk to my neighbor about Christ. I don't think that is arrogant-- I think its impossible to avoid if Christ is our life.


----------



## Gforce9 (Aug 25, 2017)

Romans5eight said:


> I understand your viewpoints, but I do think we shouldn't over-correct the problem of decisional Christianity. We should focus on our duty to share Christ with all that we can.
> 
> So I am not going to wait for my pastor to talk to my neighbor about Christ. I don't think that is arrogant-- I think its impossible to avoid if Christ is our life.



Jesse,
The question, though, is who's duty? What duty do I have as a layman? What duty does the minister have.....from Scripture? Your post inferes we all have the ministry of the word. I don't believe we do.... I in no way wish to be combative, but that issue is front and center......


----------



## Deleted member 7239 (Aug 25, 2017)

Joshua said in a previous post, "Not only should it prove difficult "not to tell the lost about" Christ, but it is every Christian's duty according to place, station, and ability."


----------



## BGF (Aug 25, 2017)

Jesse, by all means talk to your neighbor about Christ. Just take heed to understand your call and gifting. Much harm can be done by well-intentioned lay "evangelists". I shudder at the some of the false things I've ignorantly said of Christ when sharing the gospel.

Since you feel so strongly about this, have you considered talking to your elders about call discernment? Perhaps you are called to preach and teach. They would be able to help you figure out if that is the case.


----------



## Deleted member 7239 (Aug 25, 2017)

I appreciate and value all of your thoughts on this. I think there is a difference between telling my neighbor about Christ and standing up and preaching in front of a congregation.


----------



## Deleted member 7239 (Aug 25, 2017)

BGF said:


> Jesse, by all means talk to your neighbor about Christ. Just take heed to understand your call and gifting. Much harm can be done by well-intentioned lay "evangelists". I shudder at the some of the false things I've ignorantly said of Christ when sharing the gospel.
> 
> Since you feel so strongly about this, have you considered talking to your elders about call discernment? Perhaps you are called to preach and teach. They would be able to help you figure out if that is the case.



I operate a small business and I wouldn't be a very good pastor.


----------



## Gforce9 (Aug 25, 2017)

Romans5eight said:


> Joshua said in a previous post, "Not only should it prove difficult "not to tell the lost about" Christ, but it is every Christian's duty according to place, station, and ability."



I am in agreement with Josh. I understand my "place, station, and ability". It is not minister of the word and sacrament.....


----------



## Deleted member 7239 (Aug 25, 2017)

Gforce9 said:


> I am in agreement with Josh. I understand my "place, station, and ability". It is not minister of the word and sacrament.....



Neither am I a minister of word and sacrament. Does this prohibit me from actively telling the lost about Christ? If they show interest I'm not going to sprinkle them with water and start preaching to them. I am going to move them toward joining a biblical church.


----------



## Gforce9 (Aug 25, 2017)

Romans5eight said:


> Neither am I a minister of word and sacrament. Does this prohibit me from actively telling the lost about Christ? If they show interest I'm not going to sprinkle them with water and start preaching to them. I am going to move them toward joining a biblical church.



I think that is a good course of action. I would only add that it is a confessionally Reformed church that has not bought into the threshold/decisional nonsense that Brett and Josh talked about......


----------



## Deleted member 7239 (Aug 25, 2017)

I was going to baptize them and sign and date their bible, just kidding-- I am a member of a PCA church. I do agree with the WCF, but I also think that we err too much on the side of letting the ordained worry about the lost. I think we all should do what we can to point all we can to Christ, the scriptures, and His church. 

Appreciate you guys


----------



## jw (Aug 25, 2017)

Romans5eight said:


> I do agree with the WCF, but, I also think that we err too much on the side of letting the ordained worry about the lost.


If this is what you think the Confessional position is, or that it is what has been asserted in the thread, then you have missed the point.


Romans5eight said:


> I think we all should do what we can to point all we can to Christ, the scriptures, and His church.


Your intent seems pious, and commendable insofar as _intent_ goes, but if "what we can" falls outside of the King's ordering of His Kingdom, all the good intentions in the world do not make it right, and your argument is not with men, but with the King Who orders His Kingdom as He sees fit. Christ Himself gave perfect obedience to His Father, not straying from His Father's commandment, even praying, "Not my will, but thine be done," (Luke 22.42, see also John 5.19, John 6.38, John 10.18b). Do we -according to place and station- pattern our practice after the obeyer _par excellence,_ the God of all creation, or do we take our own measures, howsoever seemingly pious, and do that instead? Do we listen to and submit to Him as the Architect of His own kingdom, or do we go about trying to "help" him and -like Peter (Matthew 16.22)- tell Him a better way? Let us check our wills, good intentions, so on and so forth at the door, and let the Lord of the house take those things, wash and sanctify them in the Water of the Word, then return them to us with His design.

Reactions: Amen 2


----------



## Deleted member 7239 (Aug 25, 2017)

Joshua said:


> If this is what you think the Confessional position is, or that it is what has been asserted in the thread, then you have missed the point.
> Your intent seems pious, and commendable insofar as _intent_ goes, but if "what we can" falls outside of the King's ordering of His Kingdom, all the good intentions in the world do not make it right, and your argument is not with men, but with the King Who orders His Kingdom as He sees fit. Christ Himself gave perfect obedience to His Father, not straying from His Father's commandment, even praying, "Not my will, but thine be done." Do we -according to place and station- pattern our practice after the obeyer _par excellence,_ the God of all creation, or do we take our own measures, howsoever seemingly pious, and do that instead? Do we listen to and submit to Him as the Architect of His own kingdom, or do we go about trying to "help" him and -like Peter (Matthew 16.22)- tell Him a better way? Let us check our wills, good intentions, so on and so forth at the door, and let the Lord of the house take those things, wash and sanctify them in the Water of the Word, then return them to us with His design.



I don't think that letting the clergy worry about the lost is what the confession teaches. I am saying that in our recognition of the importance of the official ministry of the Word and Sacrament we can't overcorrect and do nothing. 

Just like we can't use the doctrine of election to justify our own lack of zeal for the lost.


----------



## jw (Aug 25, 2017)

Romans5eight said:


> I don't think that letting the clergy worry about the lost is what the confession teaches. I am saying that in our recognition of the importance of the official ministry of the Word and Sacrament we can't overcorrect and do nothing.
> 
> Just like we can't use the doctrine of election to justify our own lack of zeal for the lost.


Great.

The question is why are you saying this? Have you seen such things asserted in this thread? You began by asking about organization who call identify themselves as "ministries," yet are not under the authority of the Church, whether they were helpful or competitors to the Church. I have not read all of the posts in this thread, but I can say with a strong amount of confidence that surely no one has asserted that any Christian may "do nothing."


----------



## Deleted member 7239 (Aug 25, 2017)

Joshua said:


> Great.
> 
> The question is why are you saying this? Have you seen such things asserted in this thread? You began by asking about organization who call identify themselves as "ministries," yet are not under the authority of the Church, whether they were helpful or competitors to the Church. I have not read all of the posts in this thread, but I can say with a strong amount of confidence that surely no one has asserted that any Christian may "do nothing."



We are all brothers here and its a sensitive topic I know. I was saying that, in general, not anyone in particular because i don't know any of you personally, that it seems as though many reformed believers do not share their faith because they may think its not their duty. I think it is unclear what exactly the duty is of the laity when it comes to sharing their faith.

So without infringing on the authority of the clergy, what would you say is the witnessing responsibility of us laypeople? Is it passively waiting for someone to ask us about our faith or actively pursuing discussions with non-believers about Christ?


----------



## Scott Bushey (Aug 25, 2017)

The Bible speaks of giving witness... all of us are cognizant of that. All the parts working together make up the whole. Much angst in this sphere is from the silly dispensationalism that is rampant in our culture and even our churches. God is not up in Heaven wringing His hands in a sweat, nor should we. There's a great difference between complacency and confidence. Most Reformed believers are a bit more biblically relaxed about giving witness and do so as the spirit leads and opportunity arises.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Scott Bushey (Aug 25, 2017)

I want to add that many times, the secondary services that make the machinery work optimally are deficient. For example, the infrastructure of prayer and hospitality in these realms. Much more emphasis is given to the outward means and the other avenues many times devalued to the degree where people who have these important gifts are not even asked to support the effort; it's like going to a gun fight with a rubber band! But I'm sure u get the point. It is a process of many means and given, as mentioned earlier, the culture, the emphasis is placed on the actual witnessing or preaching alone.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Edward (Aug 25, 2017)

Scott Bushey said:


> People cannot be saved outside of the official means of grace.



In context above, that appears to be contra-confessional. 

For example, the elect people, incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word, are saved.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Aug 25, 2017)

Not really...Christ Himself preaches the gospel, delivering those means of grace to those that are unable otherwise. No one can be saved outside of the gospel message.


----------



## RamistThomist (Aug 26, 2017)

Romans5eight said:


> So without infringing on the authority of the clergy, what would you say is the witnessing responsibility of us laypeople? Is it passively waiting for someone to ask us about our faith or actively pursuing discussions with non-believers about Christ?



One of the differences I see in lay people sharing the gospel with their coworkers, and (non) think tanks like the Gospel Coalition is that I, as part of the former, don't act like a church body.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Inactiver user19912 (Aug 26, 2017)

I once had a conversation with an elder in my current denomination about parachurch ministries. He was willing to funnel the church's meager resources over to this group because they "do work the Church doesn't do."

At one point in the conversation I said, "Jesus said in Matthew 16:18 that on the rock of Peter's confession that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the Living God He would build His Church. Can you find me a passage in Scripture that elaborates on this and says, 'But in the event that His Bride is not getting it done people can raise up for themselves organizations that function like the businesses of the world but use the language of the Church, to divert people, time, and resources away from the Bride, to mimic the works the Bride are commanded to do.' If you can find me an explicit command for parachurch ministries then by all means, we can have this conversation. But unless and until we can see a clear command or something that we can deduce by good and necessary consequence I'm opposed to this."

Rather than usurp the role of the Church and tack on "Ministries" at the end of the name, I'd say that we should focus on ensuring the the Church is doing what God has commanded the Church to do. A lay member of any given congregation can certainly share the Gospel with a non-Christian; that they would seek out an "umbrella organization" to pay them to do it and not be content with the Biblical oversight of the elders is problematic, to say the least. The two ideas discussed over the course of this thread (personal evangelism v. parachurch ministry) are apples and oranges.

Parachurch ministries claim to be helping the Church. But is it really helping the Church to say that she is insufficient unless she supports them in doing her work for them? No thank you. God has established His Church. He has not established his parachurch.

Finally, my presbytery asks this question of candidates on our theology exams: "What is your opinion of 'parachurch ministries'?" My answer was that they are not commanded in Scripture, divert the saints from the true work of the Church, and siphon away resources from Her. No one spoke in opposition to my answer. Take that for whatever it's worth.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## Deleted member 7239 (Aug 26, 2017)

"The two ideas discussed over the course of this thread (personal evangelism v. parachurch ministry) are apples and oranges."

If it is good for a private individual to engage in an activity (witnessing, counseling, giving to poor, etc.) wouldn't it be better to do these in an organized and more effective way with other believers?


----------



## Steve Curtis (Aug 26, 2017)

USNCerGuard said:


> organizations that function like the businesses of the world but use the language of the Church, to divert people, time, and resources away from the Bride, to mimic the works the Bride are commanded to do.


Okay, we get it. You don't like parachurch ministries. But to throw them all under the bus and impugn their motivations is simply wrong.


----------



## RamistThomist (Aug 26, 2017)

Romans5eight said:


> "The two ideas discussed over the course of this thread (personal evangelism v. parachurch ministry) are apples and oranges."
> 
> If it is good for a private individual to engage in an activity (witnessing, counseling, giving to poor, etc.) wouldn't it be better to do these in an organized and more effective way with other believers?



As a rule and a trend, parachurch ministry almost always start to view themselves as "the real deal." With the exception of a few cultists, individuals witnessing on the streets usually do not replace the church in peoples' minds. Parachurch ministries do.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Ben Zartman (Aug 26, 2017)

Romans5eight said:


> So without infringing on the authority of the clergy, what would you say is the witnessing responsibility of us laypeople? Is it passively waiting for someone to ask us about our faith or actively pursuing discussions with non-believers about Christ?



A life lived according to God's law will itself be a witness. That is your primary duty, and if you're like me, even that is difficult enough without adding duties that God has not imposed. When the lost see the way you live, they will know you are a Christian. That is a far more effective witness than searching people out specifically to tell them about Jesus. I don't shy away from declaring that in Christ is forgiveness of sins during conversations with my acquaintances, if it comes up, but I'm not forever steering the conversation that way, or bugging them with it out of the blue. And certainly I don't buttonhole perfect strangers to "share" the Gospel, because of the Golden Rule.
There are those who are called to proclaim the Gospel to all and sundry, but not every christian is called to that.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Inactiver user19912 (Aug 28, 2017)

kainos01 said:


> Okay, we get it. You don't like parachurch ministries. But to throw them all under the bus and impugn their motivations is simply wrong.



It doesn't have anything to do with what I like or don't like, Doctor. What matters is that to copy the role of the Church (for whatever reason), form a non-profit, and tack on "Ministries" to the end of it is unbibilcal, confusing, and it causes saints to be divided between what they are biblically commanded to do as a member of Christ's Church and what someone urges them to do to support via a marketing letter. 

Often that business exists because someone has created him or herself a niche wants to play the role of minister without the oversight and examination of the Church's officers. Or worse, they've convinced themselves and others that Christ's Church has failed some group and that, rather than engage inside the Church to correct it, they simply must form a niche "ministry" to reach those people. Whatever the motives are the end result is that the saints aren't strengthened as much as they're divided and God's Church is seen as deficient in its gifting and duties.

So to those who are 100% supportive of parachurch ministries, find me the book, chapter, and verse. Otherwise, stop supporting them and discuss with the elders that God has ordained for His Church what your concerns are that you think require a parachurch group. It could be that God has placed that given niche on your heart so that you could speak with your elders about it, so that they could, in turn, see and correct a deficiency. But don't divert the saints into your niche at the expense of the Church, because that's what winds up happening, more times than not. People support the guy who sends the flashy support letter with the sense of urgency and not the Church, who doesn't.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Deleted member 7239 (Aug 28, 2017)

USNCerGuard said:


> It doesn't have anything to do with what I like or don't like, Doctor. What matters is that to copy the role of the Church (for whatever reason), form a non-profit, and tack on "Ministries" to the end of it is unbibilcal, confusing, and it causes saints to be divided between what they are biblically commanded to do as a member of Christ's Church and what someone urges them to do to support via a marketing letter.
> 
> Often that business exists because someone has created him or herself a niche wants to play the role of minister without the oversight and examination of the Church's officers. Or worse, they've convinced themselves and others that Christ's Church has failed some group and that, rather than engage inside the Church to correct it, they simply must form a niche "ministry" to reach those people. Whatever the motives are the end result is that the saints aren't strengthened as much as they're divided and God's Church is seen as deficient in its gifting and duties.
> 
> So to those who are 100% supportive of parachurch ministries, find me the book, chapter, and verse. Otherwise, stop supporting them and discuss with the elders that God has ordained for His Church what your concerns are that you think require a parachurch group. It could be that God has placed that given niche on your heart so that you could speak with your elders about it, so that they could, in turn, see and correct a deficiency. But don't divert the saints into your niche at the expense of the Church, because that's what winds up happening, more times than not. People support the guy who sends the flashy support letter with the sense of urgency and not the Church, who doesn't.



Not all para-church ministries are equal and I don't think anyone is 100% for all of them. I think the question is the difference between performing the good works that we were created for, and carrying out the Great Commission apart from the visible church and ordained ministers. 

I think we would all agree that doing good works is scriptural. Feeding orphans for example. So doing this in an organized way is a good thing. Telling these orphans about the gospel is a good thing. None of this competes with the church, but the opposite. Pointing people to scripture and Christ will always point toward His church.


----------



## Steve Curtis (Aug 28, 2017)

Maybe we need to define the term more precisely. Do we denigrate the work of ministries that translate the Bible into indigenous languages (I use the word, "ministries," intentionally because they do, in fact, minister to the needs of people who do not have God's Word in their tongue)?
What about seminaries not under direct church or denominational oversight? Is RTS (as one example) "diverting the saints...at the expense of the church"? They solicit funds that might otherwise be designated for a local church (though, hopefully, gifts to these types of "ministries" are above and beyond tithes).


----------



## Inactiver user19912 (Aug 28, 2017)

Y'all go ahead and parse away and I'll wander back onto the Board to watch. I'm bowing out at this point because: A) I'm not really interested in commenting on a long thread of "what abouts" (no offense to anyone involved in the conversation) and B) I'm close enough to Houston to be affected by Harvey so most of my attention will be diverted. I only hopped on here to just browse some posts, got involved, and frankly, wish I had kept my mouth shut.

As for the seminary thing I'd prefer the training of men to be at the presbytery level with close supervision of local elders of the Church. I have mixed feelings about seminaries as they're currently utilized. I don't care for the academic establishment and its methodologies as they apply to the study of Scripture but I've said more than I care to say already.


----------



## Deleted member 7239 (Aug 28, 2017)

USNCerGuard said:


> Y'all go ahead and parse away and I'll wander back onto the Board to watch. I'm bowing out at this point because: A) I'm not really interested in commenting on a long thread of "what abouts" (no offense to anyone involved in the conversation) and B) I'm close enough to Houston to be affected by Harvey so most of my attention will be diverted. I only hopped on here to just browse some posts, got involved, and frankly, wish I had kept my mouth shut.
> 
> As for the seminary thing I'd prefer the training of men to be at the presbytery level with close supervision of local elders of the Church. I have mixed feelings about seminaries as they're currently utilized. I don't care for the academic establishment and its methodologies as they apply to the study of Scripture but I've said more than I care to say already.



It's easy to be rigid and paint with a broad brush with para-church ministries. I just hoped in this thread that maybe some people on this board would see that all Christian organizations outside the church are necessary and good.

The homeless shelter/orphanage aren't "what abouts" they are actual places in your area meeting actual needs that the local church isn't meeting.

Sorry that you have to deal with the "nonsense of surviving mortals".


----------



## Stope (Aug 28, 2017)

"Para church" ministries are extremely valuable and used by God all the time!!! This shouldn't even be a real question and it pains my heart to see that it is


----------



## Steve Curtis (Aug 28, 2017)

USNCerGuard said:


> It doesn't have anything to do with what I like or don't like



See, I'm not convinced that's true:



USNCerGuard said:


> I'd prefer





USNCerGuard said:


> I have mixed feelings





USNCerGuard said:


> I don't care for



I would encourage you to step back and reconsider things more objectively. 
I do understand that Harvey demands your attention and I will be praying for you and all those affected. I look forward to hearing from you after the crisis has passed.


----------



## yeutter (Aug 28, 2017)

Are para-Church ministries doing God's work today? yes
Should these ministries be structured as para-Church ministries?
Should seminaries be para-Church ministries or is theological education properly a function of the Church?
Should ministries of compassion be par-Church or should it be properly a ministry of the deacons of the Church?
Should Bible translation work be a para-Church ministry, or an effort by publishers, or should a Church have oversight over these endeavors?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Deleted member 7239 (Aug 28, 2017)

I've come to the conclusion that the term Para-Church is a bad term was invented by a person with bad ecclesiology. All of the "in a perfect world" scenarios aren't helpful either. In a perfect world the church would make all charitable organizations obsolete, but the church is scattered and divided, as we clearly demonstrate here on the PB. Baptists and Presbyterians laypeople should be able to feed the needy and clothe the naked without charges of supplanting the church. If the officers were doing these things effectively, there wouldn't be a need for others to step in, so where does the real fault lie?

I don't believe all charity and spreading of the Gospel message is to be done by officers alone, and if I were an officer I would hope that this were true.


----------



## earl40 (Aug 28, 2017)

Romans5eight said:


> IBaptists and Presbyterians laypeople should be able to feed the needy and clothe the naked without charges of supplanting the church.



I will say that I believe no one here did such. I understand you seem to see it as so, but as has been pointed out earlier this is a characterization that is simply not true. 



Romans5eight said:


> I don't believe all charity and spreading of the Gospel message is to be done by officers alone,



Charity is to be practiced by all the church, and the official proclamation of The Gospel is to be done by TE's as prescribed in scripture.


----------



## Deleted member 7239 (Aug 28, 2017)

earl40 said:


> I will say that I believe no one here did such. I understand you seem to see it as so, but as has been pointed out earlier this is a characterization that is simply not true.
> 
> 
> 
> Charity is to be practiced by all the church, and the official proclamation of The Gospel is to be done by TE's as prescribed in scripture.


There have been multiple statements in this thread that would suggest that rather than support any outside Christian organization that meets a valid need and points people to Christ, we should just rely on the official church officers to do this work. I don't believe that all of the needs of the world are the duty of church officers and we can't expect them to meet all needs, and why would a church officer see others pointing the lost to Christ as "competition". No one is advocating for extra-church organizations to administer sacraments, or become a better church alternative. They meet a need that the church isn't directly called to meet.

I think this thread is a dead horse at this point and I do thank you all for providing your interpretation of scripture. Is was very informative and explains a lot. I just hope that when I stand before Christ I hear, "Well done good and faithful servant" as we all do.


----------



## Inactiver user19912 (Aug 28, 2017)

kainos01 said:


> See, I'm not convinced that's true:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Doctor, you asked direct questions about seminaries. I answered those questions with language consistent with someone expressing an opinion. That you cherry-picked my responses to prove a point isn't becoming and is exactly the kind of thing I didn't want to have happen to my words. Think what you'd like, sir. In the end few people convince anyone of anything via the internet.


----------



## Inactiver user19912 (Aug 28, 2017)

Romans5eight said:


> It's easy to be rigid and paint with a broad brush with para-church ministries. I just hoped in this thread that maybe some people on this board would see that all Christian organizations outside the church are necessary and good.
> 
> The homeless shelter/orphanage aren't "what abouts" they are actual places in your area meeting actual needs that the local church isn't meeting.
> 
> Sorry that you have to deal with the "nonsense of surviving mortals".



The quote from Reverend Davies has been my signature long before commenting on this thread. Further, I meant it as Reverend Davies meant it, as an appreciative remark of his library. Please don't violate the Ninth Commandment by ascribing motive to my signature that does not exist. You disagree with me. I'm fine with that and agree that this is a dead horse.


----------



## Deleted member 7239 (Aug 28, 2017)

USNCerGuard said:


> The quote from Reverend Davies has been my signature long before commenting on this thread. Further, I meant it as Reverend Davies meant it, as an appreciative remark of his library. Please don't violate the Ninth Commandment by ascribing motive to my signature that does not exist. You disagree with me. I'm fine with that and agree that this is a dead horse.


I'm sure we agree on more things than we disagree on. I thank you for enduring my personal nonsense as a member of the surviving mortals. 

I can appreciate your position even though I disagree with it. I have been helped greatly personally by para-church organizations over the years and its a bit of a personal insult when reformed people write them off as useless. If reformed people abandon all extra-church organizations how will we reform them? I would hope that we can represent the reformed perspective in these organizations without expecting them to become confessional. I think we should be salt and light in these organizations rather than pretending they aren't being used by God.


----------



## Gforce9 (Aug 28, 2017)

Romans5eight said:


> I'm sure we agree on more things than we disagree on. I thank you for enduring my personal nonsense as a member of the surviving mortals.
> 
> I can appreciate your position even though I disagree with it. I have been helped greatly personally by para-church organizations over the years and its a bit of a personal insult when reformed people write them off as useless. If reformed people abandon all extra-church organizations how will we reform them? I would hope that we can represent the reformed perspective in these organizations without expecting them to become confessional. I think we should be salt and light in these organizations rather than pretending they aren't being used by God.


Jesse,
This is where I think you have misunderstood the other side....quite significantly. No one has said they are "useless"....but this does strike at the heart of the issue. All the arguments that I have seen in this thread in favor of PCM' s, is only one of pragmatism. It is "good", "helpful", "useful". We don't disagree with such (In many cases), but we have an issue with the premise....that these things should be done because they are pragmatic.....because they "work". The other side says we shouldn't let pragmatism rule our decisions but rather, what God has commanded. A perfect example from recent history: the RPW requires order and simplicity in worship. Pragmatism gave us a dancing men freak show before the Lord's Table in New York.
Pragmatism should not rule the church. Give us a sound ecclesiastical argument.


----------



## Deleted member 7239 (Aug 28, 2017)

Gforce9 said:


> Jesse,
> This is where I think you have misunderstood the other side....quite significantly. No one has said they are "useless"....but this does strike at the heart of the issue. All the arguments that I have seen in this thread in favor of PCM' s, is only one of pragmatism. It is "good", "helpful", "useful". We don't disagree with such (In many cases), but we have an issue with the premise....that these things should be done because they are pragmatic.....because they "work". The other side says we shouldn't let pragmatism rule our decisions but rather, what God has commanded. A perfect example from recent history: the RPW requires order and simplicity in worship. Pragmatism gave us a dancing men freak show before the Lord's Table in New York.
> Pragmatism should not rule the church. Give us a sound ecclesiastical argument.



I agree that pragmatism shouldn't rule the church and we shouldn't try to add to the ordained means of grace. Maybe we all agree on this and are just speaking past each other. There's always underlying issues that inform our point of view. This seems like an ongoing issue, like other issues involving the RPW, that is not going to be resolved today. Without citing specific organizations on a case-by-case basis we can't speak of "the parachurch" as if it were a monolith with a concrete statement of faith. Some would call Ligonier Ministries a parachurch. I'm sure many of us wouldn't be Reformed today without that one. Many other examples could be made, but this thread could never end. 

I do appreciate all of who took the time to participate in this thread and I do appreciate your example as mature believers I can aspire to.


----------



## RamistThomist (Aug 28, 2017)

And no one is saying Ligonier is useless. Further, no one is saying Ligonier wouldn't exist at all today, if our critiques of PCMs stood. Rather, could not Ligonier do good gospel work while being under the aegeis of a local church?

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Deleted member 7239 (Aug 28, 2017)

So is the qualifier that a parachurch must be under the leadership of a local church session?


----------



## yeutter (Aug 28, 2017)

Some activities of many of the para-Church agencies could properly be but under the authority of a local or regional Church body. Some other activities, like for instance publishing, are not properly ministries but could be done through for not for profit publishing associations.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Stope (Aug 28, 2017)

earl40 said:


> How will they believe unless a preacher is sent? In our culture of today it is common belief that many are saved by their next door neighbor who is a plummer or an ultrasound technician.





earl40 said:


> Charity is to be practiced by all the church, and the official proclamation of The Gospel is to be done by TE's as prescribed in scripture.


Am I hearing you say that the the "official" Gospel message is only to be shared by "TE's"?


----------



## RamistThomist (Aug 28, 2017)

Romans5eight said:


> So is the qualifier that a parachurch must be under the leadership of a local church session?



Not always. I think what we are saying is that a lot of the dangers that come with parachurch ministries can be mitigated by church oversight. Exceptions exist, of course, think Banner of Truth. But for every Banner of Truth there are ten Gospel Coalitions.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Ben Zartman (Aug 28, 2017)

Stope said:


> Am I hearing you say that the the "official" Gospel message is only to be shared by "TE's"?


Jason,
If you read all the posts in this thread ( I know it's long), you'll find that this is exactly what he's saying. It gets discussed in detail a page or so up. In essence, it's the notion (taken from Scripture) that it is the duty of preachers, duly vetted and called by the church, to preach the gospel to those to whom they are sent (be it a to local church or sent out as missionaries). It stands in contrast to the modern notion that every believer everywhere has a duty to "share the Gospel" with everyone he meets, and to go out and look for folks to "share the Gospel" with, regardless of gifts and calling.


----------



## yeutter (Aug 28, 2017)

BayouHuguenot said:


> Not always. I think what we are saying is that a lot of the dangers that come with parachurch ministries can be mitigated by church oversight. Exceptions exist, of course, think Banner of Truth. But for every Banner of Truth there are ten Gospel Coalitions.


Is an publishing a periodical a proper function for a Church? 
Organizations that are primarily engaged in evangelism probably be under direct ecclesiastical oversight.
Theological education probably should be under direct ecclesiastical oversight.
Is religious publishing a similar function?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Deleted member 7239 (Aug 28, 2017)

Ben Zartman said:


> Jason,
> If you read all the posts in this thread ( I know it's long), you'll find that this is exactly what he's saying. It gets discussed in detail a page or so up. In essence, it's the notion (taken from Scripture) that it is the duty of preachers, duly vetted and called by the church, to preach the gospel to those to whom they are sent (be it a to local church or sent out as missionaries). It stands in contrast to the modern notion that every believer everywhere has a duty to "share the Gospel" with everyone he meets, and to go out and look for folks to "share the Gospel" with, regardless of gifts and calling.



Honest question--Is it within the "reformed confessional" view I will call it, that there are those who aren't ordained TE's, but do have gifts and calling to share the gospel?

**I know this is a long thread, but it is a crucial topic and it's worth taking the time to hash out. I've spent most of my life believing the opposite of the confessional view so I appreciate you indulging me.


----------



## Ben Zartman (Aug 29, 2017)

Romans5eight said:


> Honest question--Is it within the "reformed confessional" view I will call it, that there are those who aren't ordained TE's, but do have gifts and calling to share the gospel?
> 
> **I know this is a long thread, but it is a crucial topic and it's worth taking the time to hash out. I've spent most of my life believing the opposite of the confessional view so I appreciate you indulging me.


The LBCF in Chapter 26:11 allows for non-elders to preach, so long as they are duly called and vetted by the church. But the formal preaching of the Gospel is not done separately from the church. At my church, anyone who goes to preach outdoors, or at a local nursing home, or has a Bible study in his home first receives the consent and approval of the elders. Some are not given that consent for various reasons.
None of this is to say that you cannot share the Gospel with your neighbor if opportunity arises--it just means that the formal declaration of the Gospel is under the oversight of the Church, and that not everyone need get all bothered if they haven't "led someone to Christ" in the last X amount of time.


----------



## earl40 (Aug 29, 2017)

Romans5eight said:


> Honest question--Is it within the "reformed confessional" view I will call it, that there are those who aren't ordained TE's, but do have gifts and calling to share the gospel?
> 
> **I know this is a long thread, but it is a crucial topic and it's worth taking the time to hash out. I've spent most of my life believing the opposite of the confessional view so I appreciate you indulging me.




*Q. 35. How is the covenant of grace administered under the New Testament?*

A. Under the New Testament, when Christ the substance was exhibited, the same covenant of grace was and still is to be administered in the preaching of the Word,[133] and the administration of the sacraments of Baptism[134] and the Lord's Supper;[135] in which grace and salvation are held forth in more fulness, evidence, and efficacy, to all nations.[136]


----------



## Deleted member 7239 (Aug 29, 2017)

earl40 said:


> *Q. 35. How is the covenant of grace administered under the New Testament?*
> 
> A. Under the New Testament, when Christ the substance was exhibited, the same covenant of grace was and still is to be administered in the preaching of the Word,[133] and the administration of the sacraments of Baptism[134] and the Lord's Supper;[135] in which grace and salvation are held forth in more fulness, evidence, and efficacy, to all nations.[136]



So if preaching is happening in a church building on Sunday mornings, wouldn't that restrict the Gospel from being heard by non-believers? 

Non-believers aren't in the habit of driving to church on Sunday mornings. So how do they hear the Gospel?


----------



## earl40 (Aug 29, 2017)

Romans5eight said:


> So if preaching is happening in a church building on Sunday mornings, wouldn't that restrict the Gospel from being heard by non-believers?
> 
> Non-believers aren't in the habit of driving to church on Sunday mornings. So how do they hear the Gospel?



If they do not have a pastor going out to them, drag them to church (like I did my sons when they were young) where they can hear the full council of God and receive the sacraments. 
Of course I am kidding about the "dragging", though I do STRONGLY encourage them to attend a good local congregation.


----------



## Deleted member 7239 (Aug 29, 2017)

earl40 said:


> If they do not have a pastor going out to them, drag them to church (like I did my sons when they were young) where they can hear the full council of God and receive the sacraments.
> Of course I am kidding about the "dragging", though I do STRONGLY encourage them to attend a good local congregation.


So in your view, the way to remain confessional and also reach the lost is to invite them to join us at worship on Sunday?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## jwithnell (Aug 29, 2017)

Friend, I'm glad you are grappling with this. You're getting sound feedback that the normal way a person hears the gospel is through the preached word, but that we all have a duty to give an answer for the hope that is within us. I also believe this means we should do all we can to make sure our pastors are freed up to study, pray, and preach.


----------



## Deleted member 7239 (Aug 29, 2017)

jwithnell said:


> Friend, I'm glad you are grappling with this. You're getting sound feedback that the normal way a person hears the gospel is through the preached word, but that we all have a duty to give an answer for the hope that is within us. I also believe this means we should do all we can to make sure our pastors are freed up to study, pray, and preach.



I'm sure you believe it is sound advice. But there are many Reformed pastors who would disagree with the position. 

The question remains: 

If the only person a lost soul can hear the Gospel from is an ordained teaching elder, and they never come to worship on Sunday since they aren't regenerate, how do they hear the message of the Gospel? Are we supposed to invite the lost to come worship with us?


----------



## jwithnell (Aug 29, 2017)

I would not agree that the only person a lost soul can hear is a preacher. I'd even go on to say that our rich doctrinal heritage can lead to complacency. We should engage the world around us. We should be salt and light in a dying world. We should be ready to explain the hope Christ gives us. If the apoligetics group mentioned earlier equips otherwise church-going students to do so, that's great! (I.e. the students should be active participants in a local church, but if discussions about science and philosophy helps them to be light on campus, great!)

Here in the US, we've had a strange migration of Biblical responsibilities flow from the church to other organizations. The normal spread of the gospel is from the church. The disciplining of believers -- that great commandment of the great commission -- is the responsibility of the church. That means both the ordained and the laity are under authority and accountable to one another under the leadership of Christ, the only head of the church.

As the mainline churches grew weaker in the mid-20th century, I think a lot of young people appreciated the teaching and praise of the para-church organizations. I believe we've had generations of church leadership that came up through these organizations and have a weakened understanding of both the responsibility and authority if the church.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Deleted member 7239 (Aug 29, 2017)

jwithnell said:


> I would not agree that the only person a lost soul can hear is a preacher. I'd even go on to say that our rich doctrinal heritage can lead to complacency. We should engage the world around us. We should be salt and light in a dying world. We should be ready to explain the hope Christ gives us. If the apoligetics group mentioned earlier equips otherwise church-going students to do so, that's great! (I.e. the students should be active participants in a local church, but if discussions about science and philosophy helps them to be light on campus, great!)
> 
> Here in the US, we've had a strange migration of Biblical responsibilities flow from the church to other organizations. The normal spread of the gospel is from the church. The disciplining of believers -- that great commandment of the great commission -- is the responsibility of the church. That means both the ordained and the laity are under authority and accountable to one another under the leadership of Christ, the only head of the church.
> 
> As the mainline churches grew weaker in the mid-20th century, I think a lot of young people appreciated the teaching and praise of the para-church organizations. I believe we've had generations of church leadership that came up through these organizations and have a weakened understanding of both the responsibility and authority if the church.


I would agree with everything you say here. I appreciate your thoughts


----------



## jw (Aug 29, 2017)

Jesse,

I appreciate that you want to "get to the bottom of things." I have been silent on latter portion of this thread because -like you- I believe the dead horse to be beaten enough, since Scriptural arguments have not been answered. Ergo, after this post, I have no particular plans to engage any further, unless we can start dealing with the Scriptural arguments, .

I believe Greg made a good point above concerning pragmatism vs Scriptural input. All of theology is not cut and dry obvious. This is, I assert, by design in God's providence (how He has ordered the Scriptures, how we're to interpret Scripture _with_ Scripture, some things are less clear and become more clear by other more explicit passages, _etc_.). You are throwing around "what ifs," but we must discuss "what has God commanded," including not only the explicit passages put forward, but also all of their implications, applications, relevance to other passages, "the analogy of Scripture," etc. All the "what ifs" in the world may not inform our practice. I, and others, have put forth Scriptural arguments that, while nuanced, have still not been answered by detractors. Instead, we're given answers as to how the church has perceptively failed to take up her duty, ergo, "ministries" outside the church should be supported. We're told that hearts are pained because people _question_ the validity of these "ministries," since the Lord _apparently_ has used them for the salvation of souls. So on, so forth.

What saith the Scriptures? What saith the Lord Jesus Christ, King of the Kingdom, and the Architect not only of its building, but _how_ and through _what means_ it is to be built? What of the passage surrounding -as my dear Pastor has called it- "the great omission of the Great Commission in Matthew 28 (i.e. the _who_ that are sent, the nature of what a _disciple_ is, and what constitutes them as _disciples_, and the enduring nature of being a disciple)? How 'bout the gifts given to the church for the building of the church in Ephesians 4? What of the Apostle's retrograde clearing of the matter of the way of salvation in Romans 10, wherein he essentially argues that there is no _ordinary_ means of salvation outside of the men calling upon the Lord, and how men cannot call upon in Whom they have not believed, and they cannot believe of Whom they have not heard, and they cannot hear without a preacher, and that a preacher cannot get to them if he is not sent? These all are bound up in _authority_, _order, commission_, _kingdom work by King's orders_, _accountability_, _oversight_, so on, so forth. Christ, King of His Kingdom, did not even presume to take up the endeavor of Himself, but went forward by commandment of the Father.

No one is necessarily questioning the _intent_ of these organizations, or even arguing that some good has not come of them; however, we are not the ultimate arbiters or definers of what is _good_. God alone is, and "He hath shewed thee, O man, what is good; and what doth the Lord require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God," (Micah 6.8). This was in response to, perhaps, well-intended questions in verses prior, _Wherewith shall I come before the Lord, and bow myself before the high God?:_

1. Shall I come before him with burnt offerings, with calves of a year old?
2. Will the Lord be pleased with thousands of rams, or with ten thousands of rivers of oil?
3. Shall I give my firstborn for my transgression, the fruit of my body for the sin of my soul?​"Surely the Lord will be pleased with best and purest of intentions!" it seems he's saying. I will give him my first born! Surely he'll take that?! Yet, the answer was not all the thoughts he had, rather, to do justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with God. That is, _justly_ is bound up in what _*God*_ says is right, not what _we_ think is right, or good, etc. To love mercy, and to _walk humbly_, that is, not to take it upon ourselves to do things our way, to "help" the Lord in ways He has not commanded, so on so forth.

Is there a place for humanitarian aid not specifically under the auspices of the church? Of course. No one is arguing against that. May these same places point men to Christ, with a right understanding of what being a disciple means (i.e. that it is bound up in the life of the Visible Church, in all its ordinances, doctrines, _etc_.)? Absolutely! But we must leave off and eschew that kind of egalitarian, one-off, decisionalistic 'gospel' message that presents not a whole Christ, but just some parts of Him that make it tenable to love Him, but not His kingdom. Further, let not these entities call themselves _ministries_ in the official sense, conflating it with that ministry of reconciliation. They are not the same. There are organizations out there ran by Christians, and we praise the Lord for such things, and we also understand that the Lord can use a crooked stick to draw a straight line. Yet, that does not mean He authorized _us_ to support such things because in His secret providence He has apparently used them. He is free. We are not. He is God. We are not. Let us each, as private Christians, seek to subdue our own callings for Christ, adorning our profession, such that men would see our deeds and praise our Father in heaven. Yet, let us not conflate that with the ministry of Reconciliation and the discipling of the nations, which is uniquely, authoritatively, and officially mandated to the kingdom of God on earth, that is, the Church, of Whom there is no other head, except Jesus Christ.


----------



## Deleted member 7239 (Aug 29, 2017)

Joshua said:


> Jesse,
> 
> I appreciate that you want to "get to the bottom of things." I have been silent on latter portion of this thread because -like you- I believe the dead horse to be beaten enough, since Scriptural arguments have not been answered. Ergo, after this post, I have no particular plans to engage any further, unless we can start dealing with the Scriptural arguments, .
> 
> ...


I would agree with everything you say here. I appreciate your thoughts


----------

