Parachurch revisited

Status
Not open for further replies.
I think part of the breakdown in this thread is that each is assuming that his own church polity is the norm. While local congregations will be ill equipped, the higher courts of the church are often well able to support those who are sent. If independency is assumed, however, there are no higher courts. Thus, the call for associations and parachurches.

I don't mean to turn this into a discussion of what Biblical church government looks like, but I think that's where the impasse is in much of this thread.
 
Also, let me ask you: What does the Church of God look like? And how does the priesthood of all believers impact our ability to voluntarily interact one with another without a strict chain of command?

Do all activities of Christians need to flow from the top down and through the authority structure of the local church? Or can Christians voluntarily join together in common cause to meet some deficiency or need?

This goes back to the thread on the recent issue w/ Ligonier and their statement on Christology. in my opinion, when one makes an official statement on particular issues and they stand in effect, for the church or are seen as a responsible vocal witness for the church, it becomes problematic at times. Me having lunch with a friend and making a declaration is not one and the same. All official declarations should have local oversight. Independency is a big problem and we are seeing the fruits of it; in a generation or two, I shudder to think what it will be like. Perg, when you ask 'what does the church of God look like', one muct make the distinction between the universal church and the local expression. In the universal, we will be known by our confession, love for the brethren and our devotion to the local church. Most of my activities fall under the jurisdiction of my overseeing elders. Ultimately, nothing I do is devoid of this and anyone who believes it does, is missing the point.

Example 1: I briefly attended a church in NC where the elders desired to review the gospel tracts that believers passed out to people in their spare time. They wanted to give permission prior to any church members sharing the gospel using literature with anyone, i.e. members could only use church-approved tracts to give to others in their spare time. While one elder insisted that this approach was wise, my wife and I drifted to another church as these announcements were made because it seemed too "top-down" and seemed to ignore the priesthood of all believers.

Example 2: A typhoon hits a country. A dozen Christian businessman decide to quickly help, so they meet together and organize relief. Such packages and workers must go out in the name of one banner, so a name is adopted and staff are sought and official registration with the gov't occurs. This Relief Group then sends the relief to the country. And they keep it up for a year or two.

Both of these examples are ok with me. But, they fall within the distinctions I made above. Serving the needy is fine and should be encouraged; however, my involvement will be w/ oversight from my local church. I don't believe any church organization would need any information toot sweet. But report on the relief would be a blessing to the congregation as the services progressed-possibly financial relief would be given.

On Sundays, these Christian businessmen go to their own respective home churches. As Christians they are part of their own local churches, but they also voluntarily banded together for this disaster relief project.

You could say that they formed a "parachurch" - but also realize that they themselves are part of the Church (Big C). So, this is not so much an expression of a parachurch but of the actions of Christ's Church around the world and how Christians have always functioned.

I guess this is my problem, trying to see why they need to think along these lines at all? These men all represent their local churches. Why can't that be enough. Why do they need to attach an idea of segregation.

In the New Testament, we do not see tight organizational structures. In fact, the Bible is not an ecclesiology hand-book and there are lots of silences on how to do things.

I don't know if I agree with this assessment fully.


Another example: Example 3: I know an old baptist pastor who runs a youth camp that used to be popular. Many people would go to the youth camp, even as the local church that organized and ran this camp shrank and shrank. This old pastor was very much against parachurch orgs. He preached against them often. Every single ministry in the world must be "under the direct supervision of a local church" he would say. That was his mantra.

But now, this shrunken church only consisted of a handful of people. But they wanted the camp to continue. They didn't have enough qualified people from their own local church to sit in on the meetings as directors of this camp to supervise and run this camp. So this church which preached very much against any parachurch organization and asserted that every ministry in existence must be under a local church...they invited outside pastors and men to sit on the board of directors and help lead the camp.

Maybe the Lord wanted to close this camp. If leadership was not able to continue, for whatever reason, to divert from a biblical hierarchy for the sake of keeping the camp together is in my opinion, unfounded. Ministries need to consider when the Lord is moving away from the direction the flesh may want.

I think it is telling that you would vote for the closure of this evangelical camp rather than enduring any adjustment of its oversight.

I've seen two extremes in missions and evangelism: (1) First, the dreadful broad evangelical tendency to say AMEN to any and all efforts at evangelism and mission no matter how hare-brained or unregulated such efforts may be.

And then (2) the uber-strict who seem to unload volumes of criticism about the bad state of missions and evangelism but are almost wholly un-engaged themselves in any efforts (partly because they'd rather see NO activity than activity done with what they perceive to be deficient ecclesiology).

Both are bad...but I think option 2 might be worse.

Many churches claim to be missionary-minded; but the hurdles and strictures that must be jumped though are so strict that nobody can actually do missions because of these tight convictions. Almost everything feels like a compromise, and so nothing or little is done. This is how I perceive many of the Reformed to be.
 
I think part of the breakdown in this thread is that each is assuming that his own church polity is the norm. While local congregations will be ill equipped, the higher courts of the church are often well able to support those who are sent. If independency is assumed, however, there are no higher courts. Thus, the call for associations and parachurches.

I don't mean to turn this into a discussion of what Biblical church government looks like, but I think that's where the impasse is in much of this thread.

Yes, exactly. I believe in independency and am not a presbyterian. This impacts our perspective, for sure.

I will note that the broadly reformed, when they desire to do missions, often seem to gravitate towards activities that are more in keeping with the independency model.

I also believe that it can be shown that those who are more broadly reformed are also more active in missionary and evangelistic initiatives towards unbelievers (probably because they are less bound by strict convictions and are free to do more).
 
I also believe that it can be shown that those who are more broadly reformed are also more active in missionary and evangelistic initiatives towards unbelievers (probably because they are less bound by strict convictions and are free to do more).

It is likely the case that these "broadly" reformed have their own perspective by which they identify "evangelistic initiatives." They probably only credit those activities which are "seen" to be doing something. Conservatives I know go door to door, hand out tracts, visit nursing homes, etc. I much prefer the way they do to the way others only criticise.
 
I think it is telling that you would vote for the closure of this evangelical camp rather than enduring any adjustment of its oversight.

I ask, in how many of these instances is God closing the doors on a continued effort? Surely you agree that there are times. Running out of money and leadership might be just that.


In regard to the Reformed, one of the things that came part and parcel for me was the idea that God rules and reigns. The sweating that came with evangelism was lifted. This is not to say that the reformed do not see active outreaches important-we do. It's just that we are not overly frustrated as if time is a factor and hence, we prepare and organize within the framework God ordains and decrees and continue to move forward.
 
If independency is assumed, however, there are no higher courts. Thus, the call for associations and parachurches.

Obviously this is a topic for another thread, but I think it should be noted that God has established the Presbyterian model of church government for many reasons, one of them being the many positives of higher courts.
 
If independency is assumed, however, there are no higher courts. Thus, the call for associations and parachurches.

Obviously this is a topic for another thread, but I think it should be noted that God has established the Presbyterian model of church government for many reasons, one of them being the many positives of higher courts.

Agreed, brother. I think that the topic at hand shows a deficiency inherent in independency.
 
If independency is assumed, however, there are no higher courts. Thus, the call for associations and parachurches.

Obviously this is a topic for another thread, but I think it should be noted that God has established the Presbyterian model of church government for many reasons, one of them being the many positives of higher courts.

Plenty of Presbyterian denominations have not stayed true to the faith and many presbyterian lands have not remained faithful to the gospel. And their errors have often happened from the "top-down." Such top-down defections cannot happen among independents.
 
For those who oppose any and all parachurch orgs (no matter what their accountability structure may be):

Do you find it inconsistent to pray for and rejoice over the existence and work of groups such as Ligonier and the Trinity Bible Society even while bemoaning parachurches and wishing they did not exist?

What cognitive dissonance do you endure if you, at the same time, bemoan and rejoice the existence of such groups simultaneously?

If you had the choice, would it be better to praise God for these less-than-perfect groups or shut down down due to their poor ecclesiology?
 
If independency is assumed, however, there are no higher courts. Thus, the call for associations and parachurches.

Obviously this is a topic for another thread, but I think it should be noted that God has established the Presbyterian model of church government for many reasons, one of them being the many positives of higher courts.

Plenty of Presbyterian denominations have not stayed true to the faith and many presbyterian lands have not remained faithful to the gospel. And their errors have often happened from the "top-down." Such top-down defections cannot happen among independents.


Then take it up with the Author of the Scriptures, where the Presbyterian form of church government is presented. Christians should not be pragmatists when it comes the things of God.
 
If you had the choice, would it be better to praise God for these less-than-perfect groups or shut down down due to their poor ecclesiology?

Why are those the only two options? Why can't a third option be that Ligonier (or whomever) fall under the oversight of a denomination?
 
If independency is assumed, however, there are no higher courts. Thus, the call for associations and parachurches.

Obviously this is a topic for another thread, but I think it should be noted that God has established the Presbyterian model of church government for many reasons, one of them being the many positives of higher courts.

Plenty of Presbyterian denominations have not stayed true to the faith and many presbyterian lands have not remained faithful to the gospel. And their errors have often happened from the "top-down." Such top-down defections cannot happen among independents.


Then take it up with the Author of the Scriptures, where the Presbyterian form of church government is presented. Christians should not be pragmatists when it comes the things of God.

I believe in independency, not for pragmatic reasons, but precisely because I am trying to obey the Author of Scriptures.
 
Do you find it inconsistent to pray for and rejoice over the existence and work of groups such as Ligonier and the Trinity Bible Society even while bemoaning parachurches and wishing they did not exist?

Is this not some sort of an Appeal to Pragmatism Fallacy? Parachurch organizations are legitimate because Ligonier is a useful organization.

I think Andrew’s simple “third option” (post #41) makes a very good point.
 
If you had the choice, would it be better to praise God for these less-than-perfect groups or shut down down due to their poor ecclesiology?

Why are those the only two options? Why can't a third option be that Ligonier (or whomever) fall under the oversight of a denomination?

It could and it probably should. Right now it is more like an incorporated legal business, isn't it?

Yet Reformed folks, who praise Ligonier, often unduly criticize evangelical missionary orgs which have representatives leading them from the churches involved in sending them missionaries (a stricter level of oversight than Ligonier).
 
Do you find it inconsistent to pray for and rejoice over the existence and work of groups such as Ligonier and the Trinity Bible Society even while bemoaning parachurches and wishing they did not exist?

Is this not some sort of an Appeal to Pragmatism Fallacy? Parachurch organizations are legitimate because Ligonier is a useful organization.

I think Andrew’s simple “third option” (post #41) makes a very good point.

I am showing the partiality of those who are down on missionary organizations organized much in the same way as Ligonier yet give Ligonier a free pass in this area of ecclesiology.
 
I believe in independency, not for pragmatic reasons, but precisely because I am trying to obey the Author of Scriptures.

If you are an Independent you place the radical power of the church in the congregation rather than the presbytery. You should still think the power is divinely given to the church rather than some voluntary association, and should therefore have much the same feeling as a divine right Presbyterian feels about parachurch organisations.
 
I believe in independency, not for pragmatic reasons, but precisely because I am trying to obey the Author of Scriptures.

If you are an Independent you place the radical power of the church in the congregation rather than the presbytery. You should still think the power is divinely given to the church rather than some voluntary association, and should therefore have much the same feeling as a divine right Presbyterian feels about parachurch organisations.

Yes. And those independent churches cooperate among each other to pool resources and send folks to man specialized training centers for missionaries, etc.

How are many missionary agencies run? Some, it is admitted, are run like businesses, sadly. Others betray their ideology and fall into a corporate mentality, it is true.

But many parachurches and missionary orgs are run by a leadership derived from the pastors of the churches who have sent missionaries through that organization. Thus, in structure this is very similar to a denominationally-run school, except that the cooperating churches are not involved merely due to denominational affiliation but are involved, instead, due to voluntary association.

Yes, I believe that local churches have the responsibility for the raising up, training, and sending of missionaries. They may delegate some tasks, such as training, to entities outside the local church (such as seminaries and bible colleges for the training of their men), yet it is the church's responsibility still. And local churches may cooperate with one another for the broader task of missions.
 
I am showing the partiality of those who are down on missionary organizations organized much in the same way as Ligonier yet give Ligonier a free pass in this area of ecclesiology.

I thoroughly understood your point, that many give "Ligonier a free pass." I don't think we should. I have often thought that even Westminster Seminary is wrongfully given a "free pass." Independency is rampant, but that does not make it a good thing. Do me a favor please. (as I have not read everything here yet) Which post of yours demonstrated that independency is legitimate.
 
Yes. And those independent churches cooperate among each other to pool resources and send folks to man specialized training centers for missionaries, etc.

A voluntary association of churches is still not a parachurch organisation. You are still preserving the radical power in the church so that the action is the action of the church, not of a voluntary society. So, again, you should feel the same way as a Presbyterian feels about parachurch organisations.
 
I am showing the partiality of those who are down on missionary organizations organized much in the same way as Ligonier yet give Ligonier a free pass in this area of ecclesiology.

I thoroughly understood your point, that many give "Ligonier a free pass." I don't think we should. I have often thought that even Westminster Seminary is wrongfully given a "free pass." Independency is rampant, but that does not make it a good thing. Do me a favor please. (as I have not read everything here yet) Which post of yours demonstrated that independency is legitimate.

I haven't proved that independency is biblical or legitimate. This discussion board, being a mix of WCF and 1689 adherents, seems to tolerate both by virtue of our accepted confessions.

I am sure perhaps many other threads discuss this point of whether independency is legit or not.

I do understand that our ecclesiological views really impact this discussion a lot.

I would assume that independents would be more forgiving of parachurch orgs whereas Presbyterians would desire more of a denominational approach to any shared efforts such as the training of ministers, publication of materials, and missionary efforts. It would seem that a Presbyterian Approach would want to have all ministries under the umbrella of the denomination and therefore, such ministries would be "under the church" whereby independents must voluntarily join together with other churches not of the same denomination such that their work is viewed as "inter-church" and less underneath the authority of a single church or authority structure. The reins are thus looser.

Thus, the broadly evangelical world (by and large independents) does a plethora of activity through parachurch orgs. Some of this activity is good, and some of it is bad. I do believe that since WWII, the missionary expansions we have seen to the ends of the earth have been largely driven by evangelicals and independent fundamentalists, however, and not from the older mainline denominations operating under the denominational structure. Those mainline structures/denominations have mostly seemed to have waned in these past 6-7 decades or so.

Your comments on Westminster Seminary also being given a free pass are interesting. Many seminaries seem totally unhinged and free from denominational authority. And I can't help but note that those older seminaries and divinity schools founded by the mainline denominations have seemed to spread more heresy in these past two centuries than any bible school founded by independents that I know of. I know that proper ecclesiology and confessionalism are paraded on the PB as a cure-all...as antidotes and safeguards against error; and I affirm that they help. Yet even confessional denominations with solid presbyterian ecclesiology have gone over en masse into apostasy, and even denominational seminaries have spread theological liberalism. In light of all this, independency running rampant doesn't seem like the greatest threat to the church.
 
Yes. And those independent churches cooperate among each other to pool resources and send folks to man specialized training centers for missionaries, etc.

A voluntary association of churches is still not a parachurch organisation. You are still preserving the radical power in the church so that the action is the action of the church, not of a voluntary society. So, again, you should feel the same way as a Presbyterian feels about parachurch organisations.

I believe I feel much the same way about parachurch orgs as many Presbyterians feel about parachurch orgs. Especially if the opinions of the PCA are counted and not merely the tighter convictions of the "TR" micro-denominations.

I believe, for instance, that the local church is the one who sends missionaries and who has the authority over the missionary. Yet, the local church may send the missionary to train at specialized training schools. And most of those schools are led by boards of directors drawn from the local churches supplying their personnel. Delegated authority is still authority and it is okay for a local church to "farm out" its training to others who have a specialized skill and calling to manage such training.

I would hate to see Ligonier or tract societies or the Trinity Bible Society shut its doors, and I praise God for their work. I do not wish them out of existence because they seem not to meet some strict ideal of ecclesiology. It sounds like you as well are willing to tolerate such entities and praise God for the TBS, right?

Just so we are on the same page, can you define "parachurch" for me? There seems to be a continuum of how these are governed, and I would hate to make a sweeping affirmation or denunciation of them all despite the variety of ways that they are governed.
 
It sounds like you as well are willing to tolerate such entities and praise God for the TBS, right?

A society distributing Bibles is not illegitimate; but if it assumes powers of the church it weakens its ability to act according to the secular power it needs to do its work. It doesn't only weaken the church which is specially organised to function as a sacred society; it weakens its own secular interests; and, what is worse, it runs the risk of combining the secular and sacred in a dangerous poison.
 
I believe this link from John MacArthur and Grace To You aptly summarizes my position. He seems not to condemn all parachurches, but he does seem to warn us how parachurches might fail in their servanthood to local churches and stray: http://www.gty.org/blog/B130218/no-substitutions

In the last several years, the proliferation of specialized ministries and parachurch organizations has been astounding. Today there’s a separate ministry for every biblical viewpoint, theological perspective, or practical interest, not to mention all the pseudo-Christian groups focused on social and political activism. It’s likely that if you have got a particular spiritual itch, you can find a ministry that will scratch it, or you can find someone eager to launch a new organization to appeal to like-minded people.

The problem with the plethora of parachurch organizations is that so many of them exist outside the authority and influence of the church. The term parachurch ought to indicate a cooperative relationship, but often that’s not the case. Some pay lip service to the church; others are openly indifferent to it. Few of them—perhaps very few—are actually accountable to the church, adhere to biblical guidelines for leadership, and have a strong commitment to biblical doctrine and theology.

That’s particularly dangerous as these organizations and ministries pull believers’ attention, loyalty, and financial support away from their local congregations. Rather than devote their time, energy, and support to life and ministry in their local body, believers are segmented off from the rest of the church, focused only on the issues and concerns that appeal to them. Too often, the parachurch organization becomes the central spiritual focus, while the church is pushed further and further to the sidelines. That defies the Lord’s design for His church and cripples the Body of Christ, which can’t properly function if its members are all headed in different directions, pursuing different priorities.

You see a similar trend on Christian college campuses, where many young men and women are preparing for lives of ministry without a strong connection to the church—if left unaddressed, that disconnect only deepens with time. In fact, much of the full-time ministry work going on in the world these days—whether in charity groups, missionary endeavors, Christian education, or some other parachurch activity—happens outside and apart from the church.

And while plenty of those parachurch organizations are doing valuable, necessary work, the trend away from the church—the only institution the Lord established and promised to bless—is still a serious cause for concern.

The solution is to be thoughtful about the ministries you’re supporting, and aware of their influence in your life and participation in your local congregation. One of the key points we consistently stress at Grace to You is that we cannot replace the church in the lives of our listeners and readers, nor do we want to. We can’t possibly fulfill your spiritual needs for worship, fellowship, accountability, and discipleship. We’re a complement to your local church—not a substitute.

The same should go for every other ministry or parachurch organization, and you should be wary of the ones that are comfortable being disconnected from and unaccountable to the church. Instead, look for ministries that prompt you toward greater involvement and service in your congregation—that prompt you to be more committed and connected to what the Lord is accomplishing in your church.
 
It sounds like you as well are willing to tolerate such entities and praise God for the TBS, right?

A society distributing Bibles is not illegitimate; but if it assumes powers of the church it weakens its ability to act according to the secular power it needs to do its work. It doesn't only weaken the church which is specially organised to function as a sacred society; it weakens its own secular interests; and, what is worse, it runs the risk of combining the secular and sacred in a dangerous poison.

Thanks. I agree. Very good explanation.
 
As a Presbyterian,I would uphold the church and the higher courts as the Divinely ordered organism in this world for the manifestation of His glory, and the executor of His will, over which He has appointed His Son to be Head and King. Whilst convinced that the Church is the true and proper vehicle for all undertakings of the Kingdom, there are times and seasons where necessity sometimes is permitted. I think it was a Scot divine, who (would uphold a trained ministry), yet wrote concerning a lay ministry, "he would rather see a soul go disorderly to heaven ,than orderly to hell." Bible societies are essential for they are beyond the abilities of local churches, but supporting denominations of the work must have a certain oversight. An example of this is when the Foreign Bible Socity printed the Apocrypha in about 1730, to the consternation of the Haldane brothers and their Churches in Scotland, who had to fight over the Inspiration of Scripture, and to pull the Socity into line.
 
Hello brethren-

Somewhat related, these are two articles that I had read sometime ago by Carl R. Trueman, and the other by Kevin DeYoung on parachurch organizations and extra-ecclesial "gospel partnerships". They were published in the affinity Foundations journal. I found them to be helpful.

1) Parachurch Groups and the Issues of Influence and Accountability - Carl Trueman

2) Extra-Ecclesial Gospel Partnerships: A Mess Worth Making - Kevin DeYoung & Ryan Kelley

Thanks.
 
Hello brethren-

Somewhat related, these are two articles that I had read sometime ago by Carl R. Trueman, and the other by Kevin DeYoung on parachurch organizations and extra-ecclesial "gospel partnerships". They were published in the affinity Foundations journal. I found them to be helpful.

1) Parachurch Groups and the Issues of Influence and Accountability - Carl Trueman

2) Extra-Ecclesial Gospel Partnerships: A Mess Worth Making - Kevin DeYoung & Ryan Kelley

Thanks.

You're welcome!

Appreciate your comments in the thread.
 
Trueman makes this admission in his article (linked above), that the Reformers did things that looked para-church-y:

churchmen did things that went beyond church services and meetings directly connected with church governance. In Geneva, the Company of Pastors met for mutual encouragement and edification. In Zurich and then in England, the prophesyings were gatherings focused on helping ministers improve their preaching skills. But these were all churchly in that the men involved were also connected to the same ecclesiastical bodies and subject to the same accountability structures. They were not parachurch groups, standing apart from structures provided by established polity.

Trueman describes the parachurch-like activity done by the Reformers, but then says that these were not really parachurches, which of course, is technically true, but these outside-the-church activities of the Reformers are very similar to how many parachurch orgs run. There is not much functional difference.

His assertion is true of some parachurch orgs (like the Promisekeepers), that they are unconnected to local churches. But, I've already given the example of some parachurch orgs, where the leadership of the org is tied and connected to the oversight of local churches. These parachurch orgs mirror the practices of these Reformers mentioned above in the Trueman quote. I have already given the example of mission orgs being governed by a board of directors drawn from the churches sending them missionaries. This situation seems the same as that described by Trueman in Reformation times.

Trueman then says the same things I have been asserting here in this thread all along:

There are parachurch organisations which are truly para-church, in that they exist to serve, and be subservient to, actual churches, and which fulfill such a narrow function that they cannot be confused with churches. To this group belong institutions such as seminaries and Bible colleges. They have a specific educational remit and are not involved in regular preaching, sacramental duties and discipline with regard to a specific congregation. We might also include in this group those organisations which exist to promote a specific issue or narrowly defined set of issues. Thus, Christian publishers fall into this category. The Council for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood would be parachurch in this sense, as might also be groups such as the Proclamation Trust in the United Kingdom. Few, if any, question whether such groups can, in principle, do good for the church, though there might be some interesting differences of opinion on how exactly they are to be connected to the church. For example, should seminary Board and Faculty members be appointed by the church?

Does Trueman somehow disparage the Church or not respect the Church's role by being so soft on these parachurch orgs? No. He sounds like he is asserting the same position as I am...that all parachurch orgs are not created alike. Some serve the Church and are beneficial...and some are not.

Parachurch orgs must serve the church and be tied and connected closely to the church and not usurp churchly functions (just like Trueman says). When this happens, we can praise God for these groups without feeling as if we've compromised our ecclesiology somehow.

p.s. Trueman admits that the early church document, the Didache, hints at ecclesiastical independency.
 
Trueman makes this admission in his article (linked above), that the Reformers did things that looked para-church-y:

churchmen did things that went beyond church services and meetings directly connected with church governance. In Geneva, the Company of Pastors met for mutual encouragement and edification. In Zurich and then in England, the prophesyings were gatherings focused on helping ministers improve their preaching skills. But these were all churchly in that the men involved were also connected to the same ecclesiastical bodies and subject to the same accountability structures. They were not parachurch groups, standing apart from structures provided by established polity.

Trueman describes the parachurch-like activity done by the Reformers, but then says that these were not really parachurches, which of course, is technically true, but these outside-the-church activities of the Reformers are very similar to how many parachurch orgs run. There is not much functional difference.

His assertion is true of some parachurch orgs (like the Promisekeepers), that they are unconnected to local churches. But, I've already given the example of some parachurch orgs, where the leadership of the org is tied and connected to the oversight of local churches. These parachurch orgs mirror the practices of these Reformers mentioned above in the Trueman quote. I have already given the example of mission orgs being governed by a board of directors drawn from the churches sending them missionaries. This situation seems the same as that described by Trueman in Reformation times.

Trueman then says the same things I have been asserting here in this thread all along:

There are parachurch organisations which are truly para-church, in that they exist to serve, and be subservient to, actual churches, and which fulfill such a narrow function that they cannot be confused with churches. To this group belong institutions such as seminaries and Bible colleges. They have a specific educational remit and are not involved in regular preaching, sacramental duties and discipline with regard to a specific congregation. We might also include in this group those organisations which exist to promote a specific issue or narrowly defined set of issues. Thus, Christian publishers fall into this category. The Council for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood would be parachurch in this sense, as might also be groups such as the Proclamation Trust in the United Kingdom. Few, if any, question whether such groups can, in principle, do good for the church, though there might be some interesting differences of opinion on how exactly they are to be connected to the church. For example, should seminary Board and Faculty members be appointed by the church?

Does Trueman somehow disparage the Church or not respect the Church's role by being so soft on these parachurch orgs? No. He sounds like he is asserting the same position as I am...that all parachurch orgs are not created alike. Some serve the Church and are beneficial...and some are not.

Parachurch orgs must serve the church and be tied and connected closely to the church and not usurp churchly functions (just like Trueman says). When this happens, we can praise God for these groups without feeling as if we've compromised our ecclesiology somehow.

p.s. Trueman admits that the early church document, the Didache, hints at ecclesiastical independency.

So far as seminaries and Bible colleges I see no reason why they should not fall under proper church ecclesiology also.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top