Brethren:
I am seeking input on the issue of what sort of structures are ideal for sending missionaries, what structures are permissible and how we are to send missionaries to the places furthest removed from established local congregations
Below is a blog that captures the sentiments of many calvinisits.
(NOTE: For the Reformed who are not independants, I am sure you could hammer on any form of misions that is not directly underneath your denominational body, but remember I am an independant and I see no General Assmebly happening in Acts 15. I am looking at missions from a baptist set of principles (which may be my problem according to many of you, but that's another post maybe) but given those assumptions of independancy, I am struggling to figure out how missions is to be practically carried out....especially when most calvinistic baptist churches have less than 200 people and no one who knows how to arrange visas, etc.)
Below is the fine blog post by a respected gentleman and then my gentle challenges. Help tell me where I am right, wrong or where the Bible is disputed:
See the blog first: ParaChurch—Does the end justify the means? « Reformed Baptist Fellowship
24
ParaChurch—Does the end justify the means?
By reformedbaptistfellowship
Categories: Reformed Baptist Fellowship
What is a ‘parachurch’? It would be any ministry or religious organization that is Christian in doctrine and practice, yet is not an official Church with a pastor/elders and deacons, and a congregation that meets regularly for worship (Fred Butler). It could also be described as an organization, independent of the church, coming alongside the church for the purpose of assisting the church to accomplish its mission.
Recently, while studying 2 Peter 1, the ‘parachurch’ came to mind.
There is a burden on the heart of the Apostle. Peter knows his days on earth are short (v14). The Apostolic age is drawing to a close. Peter writes with the post-apostolic church in view (v15). His desire is to protect and build up the believers who are at present (or soon will be) coming in contact with false teachers-those who would endanger the church and seek its downfall (2:1ff).
So what does the soon-to-be-departed Apostle tell the soon-to-be-post-apostolic church? “His divine power has given us everything we need for life and godliness through our knowledge of Him…” (1:3, NIV).
First, note the source: God and His unlimited, inexhaustible power. It does not originate in us or in the church.
Second, note God’s activity: ‘has given’ is a perfect tense verb, emphasizing the continuing nature of that which was given; a past act with results ongoing to the present.
Third, note his readers: ‘us/we’. We must not make the mistake of reading this as merely referring to the individual believer. Though true for the individual believer, Peter has in view the corporate body; the church collectively.
Fourth, note the sufficiency of this supply: ‘everything needed’ is supplied. Nothing is or ever will be lacking or neglected. Not one item necessary for the church to function as the glorious body of Christ has been withheld or has to be earned.
Peter’s statement is clear: God’s divine provision for His church is all encompassing. The church has been given all the resources it will ever need to: operate in a way that is pleasing to God, defend and protect itself from all enemies, accomplish the eternal purposes of God, spread the gospel of Jesus Christ locally and globally and be pure and holy in a pagan, sin-filled world.
Peter makes clear that not only did the 1st century church have all it needed, but the church in every subsequent generation already had been given all it would ever need to do the will of Christ, the Head of the church (Eph. 1:22). This divine provision for Christ’s church transcends time and culture.
So what does this have to do with the parachurch movement?
We are being told that the parachurch is essential to the church (though it has only recently shown up as a blip on the radar scope of church history).
Parachurch ministries are described anywhere from ‘God’s gift to His church’ to ‘necessary evils in the 21st century’. Examined more closely, the parachurch philosophy is nothing but pragmatism. “We (the parachurch ministry) are able to transcend denominational boundaries and are therefore more effective. We have professionals to fill niche ministries that the typical pastor is just not capable of fulfilling. We are not bound by the pressure of ‘doctrinal differences’ so we can appeal to a broader base, etc., etc.”
Is the parachurch beneficial to the body of Christ or a symptom of a deeper flaw? If the parachurch is so essential and necessary to Christ’s church, where was it in the 2nd century? 12th century? 16th century? Why in the 21st century (and why in North America especially?!) can’t the church function without professional help from ‘outside’?
Peter, by divine inspiration, declared that, in his day and in every subsequent generation, Christ’s church had already been given what it needed, with no lack of any kind, no shortage or meagerness in the outpouring of divine provision. There is no need for Christ’s church to seek for some missing element from any ‘outside source’.
Is not the rise of the parachurch phenomenon a declaration by the church (and the parachurch) that God’s provision for His church is inadequate? And is it not a declaration of the church’s abdication of its God-given responsibilities?
Let’s face it: Do I really need to listen to a football coach with 50,000 other men to learn how to love my wife as Christ commands me to? Do I really need to fly half-way around the world to sit with 30,000 other women to learn how to be the submissive wife Christ commands me to be?
Does the same truth the church has proclaimed for 1900+ years all of a sudden become more believable or ‘doable’ when Promise Keepers shares it? Or is the issue the church faces one of unbelief in the pulpit and pew?
There is no need for the church to look to contemporary trends or the latest innovative brainstorming technique to fulfill its God ordained mandate.
Christ declared: “I will build my church” (Mt. 16:18), not “I will build my parachurch.”
How do we appropriate and apprehend this divine, all-sufficient supply? “through (by means of) our knowledge of Him…” The authoritative and sufficient Word is the God-ordained means of the churches sufficient supply!
The words of Jeremiah 2:13 to the people of Israel are sadly, for the most part, appropriate for the church in our land: “My people have committed two sins: They have forsaken me, the spring of living water, and have dug their own cisterns, broken cisterns that cannot hold water.” (NIV) Oh, that the church would see in Christ and His word her all-sufficient supply for life and godliness.
Darrell Fletcher, Elder
Covenant Reformed Baptist Church
Warrenton, VA
NOTES on this blog post:
I generally agree with a suspicion towards parachurch orgs. But I do not think we can group them all into the same category. Here are my responses to this post:
MY RESPONSES (please give me input):
The New Testament churches sent out missionaries, who then (once on the field) voluntarily associated with one another and made semi-autonomous decisions among themselves, i.e. there was a field-based leadership structure even while there was accountability (though not direct day to day authority) from Antioch or other local churches.
Any article on parachurch versus local church needs to look at the example of the Pauline missionary band. Voluntary associations of missionaries, advocated by William Carey, was what birthed the modern missions movement and was opposed by many calvinistic baptists who were anti-mission and voiced many of the same objections - though less restrained - that I hear from some Reformed Baptists or calvinistic baptists today regarding voluntary associations or missionary soceities, almost all of which fall under the label “parachurch” yet mirror the NT example of missionary bands.
P.S.
Thank God for linguists, Bible translators and pilots that reach the lost.
If we throw out ANYTHING that is not DIRECTLY under ONE local church then we not only do disservice to the NT example of broad cooperation among different bands of evangelists sent out by a broad array of churches that collaborated quite freely, but we also strip the world evangelization effort of 80% of its force.
Under some definitions of parachurch, most Bible colleges, mission societies, Bible translation org and Bible societies, and missionary flight orgs are all to be condemned as unbiblical.
One key factoris this: Who governs the parachurch.
It is an assumption that all parachurches are self-governed without any oversight by local churches. This is not true.
Many missionary societies are actually run by leaders who are pastors and elders from the churches that make up the missionary society.
I.e it is the local churches sending out the missionary and the voluntary association is the path through which the local church sends the missionary. It is the pastors and elders of the churches that send their missionaries through the voluntary association that help run the missionary society in many cases.
There is not the usurpation of authority that occurs in the Promise Keepers and the other bad examples that we can dredge up this way.
One final comment:
It is true that many very bad examples can be listed of parachurches acting like they are indeed churches.
However, most would recognize that parachurches are not churches. Many parachurches in the form of evangelical mission societies are made up of missionaries sent out from local churches, through a path that can better do the essentials for them of finances, and visas and these, while not being churches, are charged with planting churches where they don’t exist.
Nowhere in Scripture do we literally have “churches planting churches”
In the NT, we have some folks who are sent out by local churches who, once sent out broadly cooperate in order to plant new churches and then honor their sending churches by reporting back to them when they return. There is an accountability to sending churches and a form of authority and yet, on the field, there must be at least semi-autonomous decisions making and some field-based decisions that need not be cleared by the local church body thousands of miles away.
P.s. For all my gripes. I did REALLY like the article. There is a need to return the honor to the local church. AMEN to your main goal. Let us work to honor our local assemblies.
So brethren, give me your insights to chew on.
While the local church is to be protected and honored what is the role of inter-church cooperation and semi-autonomous decision making on the fied. What is the role of Bible societies, cooperative groups, the alliance of confessing evangelicals that get together and codify doctrinal expressions, linguistics and bible translation (and the need to establish linguistics and intercultural training centers, a task most all local churches cannot do), etc
I am seeking input on the issue of what sort of structures are ideal for sending missionaries, what structures are permissible and how we are to send missionaries to the places furthest removed from established local congregations
Below is a blog that captures the sentiments of many calvinisits.
(NOTE: For the Reformed who are not independants, I am sure you could hammer on any form of misions that is not directly underneath your denominational body, but remember I am an independant and I see no General Assmebly happening in Acts 15. I am looking at missions from a baptist set of principles (which may be my problem according to many of you, but that's another post maybe) but given those assumptions of independancy, I am struggling to figure out how missions is to be practically carried out....especially when most calvinistic baptist churches have less than 200 people and no one who knows how to arrange visas, etc.)
Below is the fine blog post by a respected gentleman and then my gentle challenges. Help tell me where I am right, wrong or where the Bible is disputed:
See the blog first: ParaChurch—Does the end justify the means? « Reformed Baptist Fellowship
24
ParaChurch—Does the end justify the means?
By reformedbaptistfellowship
Categories: Reformed Baptist Fellowship
What is a ‘parachurch’? It would be any ministry or religious organization that is Christian in doctrine and practice, yet is not an official Church with a pastor/elders and deacons, and a congregation that meets regularly for worship (Fred Butler). It could also be described as an organization, independent of the church, coming alongside the church for the purpose of assisting the church to accomplish its mission.
Recently, while studying 2 Peter 1, the ‘parachurch’ came to mind.
There is a burden on the heart of the Apostle. Peter knows his days on earth are short (v14). The Apostolic age is drawing to a close. Peter writes with the post-apostolic church in view (v15). His desire is to protect and build up the believers who are at present (or soon will be) coming in contact with false teachers-those who would endanger the church and seek its downfall (2:1ff).
So what does the soon-to-be-departed Apostle tell the soon-to-be-post-apostolic church? “His divine power has given us everything we need for life and godliness through our knowledge of Him…” (1:3, NIV).
First, note the source: God and His unlimited, inexhaustible power. It does not originate in us or in the church.
Second, note God’s activity: ‘has given’ is a perfect tense verb, emphasizing the continuing nature of that which was given; a past act with results ongoing to the present.
Third, note his readers: ‘us/we’. We must not make the mistake of reading this as merely referring to the individual believer. Though true for the individual believer, Peter has in view the corporate body; the church collectively.
Fourth, note the sufficiency of this supply: ‘everything needed’ is supplied. Nothing is or ever will be lacking or neglected. Not one item necessary for the church to function as the glorious body of Christ has been withheld or has to be earned.
Peter’s statement is clear: God’s divine provision for His church is all encompassing. The church has been given all the resources it will ever need to: operate in a way that is pleasing to God, defend and protect itself from all enemies, accomplish the eternal purposes of God, spread the gospel of Jesus Christ locally and globally and be pure and holy in a pagan, sin-filled world.
Peter makes clear that not only did the 1st century church have all it needed, but the church in every subsequent generation already had been given all it would ever need to do the will of Christ, the Head of the church (Eph. 1:22). This divine provision for Christ’s church transcends time and culture.
So what does this have to do with the parachurch movement?
We are being told that the parachurch is essential to the church (though it has only recently shown up as a blip on the radar scope of church history).
Parachurch ministries are described anywhere from ‘God’s gift to His church’ to ‘necessary evils in the 21st century’. Examined more closely, the parachurch philosophy is nothing but pragmatism. “We (the parachurch ministry) are able to transcend denominational boundaries and are therefore more effective. We have professionals to fill niche ministries that the typical pastor is just not capable of fulfilling. We are not bound by the pressure of ‘doctrinal differences’ so we can appeal to a broader base, etc., etc.”
Is the parachurch beneficial to the body of Christ or a symptom of a deeper flaw? If the parachurch is so essential and necessary to Christ’s church, where was it in the 2nd century? 12th century? 16th century? Why in the 21st century (and why in North America especially?!) can’t the church function without professional help from ‘outside’?
Peter, by divine inspiration, declared that, in his day and in every subsequent generation, Christ’s church had already been given what it needed, with no lack of any kind, no shortage or meagerness in the outpouring of divine provision. There is no need for Christ’s church to seek for some missing element from any ‘outside source’.
Is not the rise of the parachurch phenomenon a declaration by the church (and the parachurch) that God’s provision for His church is inadequate? And is it not a declaration of the church’s abdication of its God-given responsibilities?
Let’s face it: Do I really need to listen to a football coach with 50,000 other men to learn how to love my wife as Christ commands me to? Do I really need to fly half-way around the world to sit with 30,000 other women to learn how to be the submissive wife Christ commands me to be?
Does the same truth the church has proclaimed for 1900+ years all of a sudden become more believable or ‘doable’ when Promise Keepers shares it? Or is the issue the church faces one of unbelief in the pulpit and pew?
There is no need for the church to look to contemporary trends or the latest innovative brainstorming technique to fulfill its God ordained mandate.
Christ declared: “I will build my church” (Mt. 16:18), not “I will build my parachurch.”
How do we appropriate and apprehend this divine, all-sufficient supply? “through (by means of) our knowledge of Him…” The authoritative and sufficient Word is the God-ordained means of the churches sufficient supply!
The words of Jeremiah 2:13 to the people of Israel are sadly, for the most part, appropriate for the church in our land: “My people have committed two sins: They have forsaken me, the spring of living water, and have dug their own cisterns, broken cisterns that cannot hold water.” (NIV) Oh, that the church would see in Christ and His word her all-sufficient supply for life and godliness.
Darrell Fletcher, Elder
Covenant Reformed Baptist Church
Warrenton, VA
NOTES on this blog post:
I generally agree with a suspicion towards parachurch orgs. But I do not think we can group them all into the same category. Here are my responses to this post:
MY RESPONSES (please give me input):
The New Testament churches sent out missionaries, who then (once on the field) voluntarily associated with one another and made semi-autonomous decisions among themselves, i.e. there was a field-based leadership structure even while there was accountability (though not direct day to day authority) from Antioch or other local churches.
Any article on parachurch versus local church needs to look at the example of the Pauline missionary band. Voluntary associations of missionaries, advocated by William Carey, was what birthed the modern missions movement and was opposed by many calvinistic baptists who were anti-mission and voiced many of the same objections - though less restrained - that I hear from some Reformed Baptists or calvinistic baptists today regarding voluntary associations or missionary soceities, almost all of which fall under the label “parachurch” yet mirror the NT example of missionary bands.
P.S.
Thank God for linguists, Bible translators and pilots that reach the lost.
If we throw out ANYTHING that is not DIRECTLY under ONE local church then we not only do disservice to the NT example of broad cooperation among different bands of evangelists sent out by a broad array of churches that collaborated quite freely, but we also strip the world evangelization effort of 80% of its force.
Under some definitions of parachurch, most Bible colleges, mission societies, Bible translation org and Bible societies, and missionary flight orgs are all to be condemned as unbiblical.
One key factoris this: Who governs the parachurch.
It is an assumption that all parachurches are self-governed without any oversight by local churches. This is not true.
Many missionary societies are actually run by leaders who are pastors and elders from the churches that make up the missionary society.
I.e it is the local churches sending out the missionary and the voluntary association is the path through which the local church sends the missionary. It is the pastors and elders of the churches that send their missionaries through the voluntary association that help run the missionary society in many cases.
There is not the usurpation of authority that occurs in the Promise Keepers and the other bad examples that we can dredge up this way.
One final comment:
It is true that many very bad examples can be listed of parachurches acting like they are indeed churches.
However, most would recognize that parachurches are not churches. Many parachurches in the form of evangelical mission societies are made up of missionaries sent out from local churches, through a path that can better do the essentials for them of finances, and visas and these, while not being churches, are charged with planting churches where they don’t exist.
Nowhere in Scripture do we literally have “churches planting churches”
In the NT, we have some folks who are sent out by local churches who, once sent out broadly cooperate in order to plant new churches and then honor their sending churches by reporting back to them when they return. There is an accountability to sending churches and a form of authority and yet, on the field, there must be at least semi-autonomous decisions making and some field-based decisions that need not be cleared by the local church body thousands of miles away.
P.s. For all my gripes. I did REALLY like the article. There is a need to return the honor to the local church. AMEN to your main goal. Let us work to honor our local assemblies.
So brethren, give me your insights to chew on.
While the local church is to be protected and honored what is the role of inter-church cooperation and semi-autonomous decision making on the fied. What is the role of Bible societies, cooperative groups, the alliance of confessing evangelicals that get together and codify doctrinal expressions, linguistics and bible translation (and the need to establish linguistics and intercultural training centers, a task most all local churches cannot do), etc
