The Relationship of the Church to Para-Church Organizations
But the church has not always ‘stepped up to the plate’. Many para-church organizations were formed in response to a perceived need to fill the gaps. This is commendable. We rightly thank God for the initiative and vision of leaders who sought to address these gaps. But if according to the NT the local church is the normal and true expression of the Body of Christ, what are we to make of para-church groups?
As the name suggests, para-churches exist to serve alongside and in partnership with the church in fulfilling God’s purposes. As I understand it, this was the original logic behind the formation of many para-church groups today. A number of significant missionary agencies, for example, began among networks and denominational affiliations of local churches looking to pull resources and work together.
I like the metaphor of the para-church functioning as “an arm of the church.” It has a unique and specific focus and function, which is strategic and practical. But it is also necessary that it remains connected to the broader church. We can never legitimize the dismemberment of Christ’s body, or narrowing its constituency and mission. This connection to the body is more than an invisible, spiritual relationship. It must be grounded in actual, concrete expressions of the Church, i.e., the local assembly. Ultimately, of course, the para-church serves the broader church. And in practice this means serving local churches to which they are connected and, in some meaningful sense, accountable.
If, for instance, a disciple-making endeavor is to follow the apostolic example, it must not only make individual disciples, but, in so doing, make every effort to incorporate them fully into the life of a local congregation. This requires, of course, that para-church leaders themselves model a biblical commitment to the local church in their own lives and ministries.
A Question of Authority
According to Ephesians 4:11ff., Jesus has given his church a range of leaders, all critical to its health and growth. Though there is much debate in identifying these “apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers,” (or is it “pastor-teachers”?), and whether these roles all continue today, everyone agrees that the church continues to be apostolic, prophetic, evangelistic and pastoral in character and action (even if they disagree as to what all this means). This apparently demands a diversity of leaders who will “take point” in different arenas, equipping the body to fulfill its destiny in the world. Perhaps now more than ever, it is apparent that we in the Western church, for example, need evangelists, who will not only evangelize, but also disciple other believers to share the gospel.
What is the relationship of such gifted leaders to the local congregations? I think it is obvious that they are there to serve those congregations. But it isn’t necessary that they are exclusively limited to a single congregation. Many of these ministries in the first century were itinerant in nature.
On the one hand, these itinerant ministers are recognized, appointed and sent by local congregations (e.g., Ac.13:1-3). On the other hand, their domain of operation lies among multiple churches, and sometimes beyond (e.g., in “pioneering missions”). Their ministries are, in a real sense, para-church. Yet they are also ministries of the churches – both of the sending church (or churches) and the churches of which the itinerant leaders are currently ‘active members’.
Authority in the body is not located merely in its ‘officers’. It is diffused throughout the body, in mutual accountability and instruction (cf. Mt.18:15-16; Col.3:16) – two basic components of discipleship. Every believer exercises spiritual authority when acting and speaking in accordance with the Word of God (cf. Col.3:15; Eph.5:18; Gal.6:1; etc.). However, the ministry of all the members is subject to the oversight of the men God has appointed within that congregation as shepherds (Heb.13:17), laboring under the Chief Shepherd himself (1Pe.5:3). None of us is beyond the obligation to submit ourselves to the oversight of these elders of the church – not even the individual elders themselves (1Tim.5:19-20).
But rather than being a detriment to para-church ministries, by following the biblical pattern, those whose gifts and calling are recognized and embraced by the local congregation (and its leadership) exercise a ministry endorsed, encouraged, and supported by their church fellowship – even if their ministry is well beyond the bounds of that fellowship. Rather than undermining our authority, then, this bolsters and grounds it in the real, flesh and blood community of God’s people. If, however, the people of God do not acknowledge or affirm our calling and ministry, then…that is a real dilemma. Who’s right and who’s wrong? Of course, if we have good reason to doubt the doctrinal, ethical and/or spiritual fitness of the elders of our church, we are morally bound before God to address this within the community, and, if necessary, find another congregation to which we can submit ourselves in good conscience.
Wednesday, November 26, 2008
The Church and Para-Church Ministries: Pt I
The Community of Jesus’ Disciples:
In Matthew 16:18, Jesus announced his intention to ‘church plant’. Why build another church (cf. “synagogue”) in Israel? Though Jesus never rejected the structure (note Lk.4:16) or authority of the Jewish religious establishment (see Mt.23:1-3a), he was sharply critical of its radical corruption and abuse (23:3b-36). And it is hardly coincidental that Jesus’ declaration here follows on the heels of his solemn warning to the disciples about “the powers that be” in Jerusalem (16:5-12; see also 16:1-4 and 15:1-14).
In dramatic contrast to institutional Judaism, which would ‘officially’ reject the one whom Peter has just identified as “the Son of the Living God,” at the center of this renewed assembly of Israel stands the Person and work of the remarkable Galilean rabbi. It would be his church; as he would later promise his disciples, “where two or more are gathered in my name, there am I with them,” (18:20). Isn’t that an amazing, audacious claim? But it gets better. As the congregation of God’s anointed nothing in this world or the next could overthrow it - not even death itself (16:18)! It would appear that this church of Jesus’ would have a unique relationship to and participation in the coming kingdom he announced. For, in addition to defeating the grave (and with it, him who held its power, cf. Heb.2:14; Rom.16:20), it would exercise heavenly authority to “bind” and “loose” on earth (Mt.16:19; 18:18-19).
This language of ‘loosing’ and ‘binding’ was used by the rabbis to describe their legislative and judicial pronouncements regarding what was forbidden and what was permitted. These binding decisions (presumably based on God’s revealed will in the Law and Prophets) defined one’s obligations towards both God and neighbor. In vv.15-17 we see this authority exercised in the disciplinary process executed within the church. As one commentator summarized, “the new community would exercise divinely given authority both in regulating its internal affairs and in deciding who would be admitted to and who excluded from its membership.”
It would also appear that the church’s implementation of this ‘kingdom authority’ was integral to God’s implementation of his saving purposes in the world: seeking out and protecting “these little ones” in righteousness and grace (see 18:10-14, 21-35). This is incredible, if you stop and think about it.
Similar to the promise made in 18:20 (in the context of church discipline), at the end of Matthew’s Gospel, Jesus promises: “And surely I am with you always, even to the very end of the age.” Here the context is the so-called “Great Commission,” which Jesus issued to the young “church” of the original twelve (minus one). Jesus is with his people as they go into the world to make new disciples – from Jerusalem to the very ends of the earth, from now until the end of time. Wherever (and whenever) the church is, in other words, there is the Lord in power and in Person.
The apostles likewise understood this deep and even mysterious (Eph.3:4-6; 5:32; Col.1:27) relationship of Christ with his people. Paul, for example, taught that all believers were spiritually united to Christ as the “head,” and, consequently, to one another within the corporate “body of Christ” (e.g., 1Co.12:13; Eph.5:23; Ro.12:4-5).
The apostles again corroborate Jesus’ teachings in affirming that the church, though not to be confused with the kingdom of God, is its principal representative and agent in the world. Paul, as usual, is particularly helpful, explaining how God’s eternal purposes in salvation (e.g., Eph.1:9-10; 3:11) are fulfilled in and through “his body, which is the church” (Col.1:24; Eph.1:22-23; see 2:11-3:10; 4:1-16).
The Church and the Mission of God:
But what is the relationship of the Church and its mission to the local assembly? And just what constitutes a local assembly or church? To answer the second question first, according to the NT, a local church is a group of believers in a particular area meeting regularly together for worship (including celebrating baptism and the Lord’s Supper), instruction, and fellowship (see Acts 2:41-42), as organized within a biblical structure of authority (e.g., Acts 15:6ff.). More on that below…
As we read the Book of Acts, and glean insights from the epistles of Paul, Peter, John and others, we find that the process of discipleship was primarily accomplished through local assemblies, working in concert with other congregations and their representatives (e.g., Phil.2:25) in the formation and development of new churches. In Acts 13-14, for example, this approach is paradigmatically depicted in Luke’s narration of Paul’s ministry (see especially 13:1, 42-52, 14:21-28). For the early Christians, the Great Commission was understood as a call to plant and develop churches on the one foundation of the gospel (1Co.3:5-11; Eph.2:20-22). And of course this makes sense. In Mt.28:18-20, Jesus describes the disciple-making process in terms of baptism, marking entrance into the church, and teaching the whole council of God’s will, which is one of the primary tasks of the church as “the pillar and foundation of the truth,” (1Tim.3:15). The Christian mission and the Christian church, then, went hand in hand.
Jesus has gifted his church with leadership to guide it in fulfilling its purpose (Eph.4:11ff.) by providing general oversight and instruction (1Th.5:12-13). As evidenced in Acts 14:23 and Titus 1:5, it was the apostle’s practice to appoint mature leaders in the congregations he established. Specifically, these leaders were collectively commissioned as a “body of elders” (presbyters or overseers), no doubt patterned after the Jewish synagogue. Their individual appointment followed prayerful recognition of their gifts and calling, as those raised up by the Holy Spirit (Ac.20:28), and, almost certainly, approved by the congregation at large (cf. Ac.6:3). Later, it would seem a body of deacons assisting the elders in administrative oversight and care emerged among the churches. But whatever the details of organization were exactly, we clearly see a consistent pattern of ecclesiastical authority exemplified throughout the NT (e.g., Phil.1:1; 1Tim.3:1-13; Jas.5:14; 1Pe.5:1-4; etc.).
According to Paul a local assembly was a particular but true manifestation of the one “Church of God” (e.g., 1Co.1:2; cf. 1Tim.3:15). It is this organ, as small and imperfect as it is, that was to be God’s primary instrument in making disciples of the nations. And in the course of the last 2,000 years, this seemingly weak organ has proved remarkably effective.
In Matthew 16:18, Jesus announced his intention to ‘church plant’. Why build another church (cf. “synagogue”) in Israel? Though Jesus never rejected the structure (note Lk.4:16) or authority of the Jewish religious establishment (see Mt.23:1-3a), he was sharply critical of its radical corruption and abuse (23:3b-36). And it is hardly coincidental that Jesus’ declaration here follows on the heels of his solemn warning to the disciples about “the powers that be” in Jerusalem (16:5-12; see also 16:1-4 and 15:1-14).
In dramatic contrast to institutional Judaism, which would ‘officially’ reject the one whom Peter has just identified as “the Son of the Living God,” at the center of this renewed assembly of Israel stands the Person and work of the remarkable Galilean rabbi. It would be his church; as he would later promise his disciples, “where two or more are gathered in my name, there am I with them,” (18:20). Isn’t that an amazing, audacious claim? But it gets better. As the congregation of God’s anointed nothing in this world or the next could overthrow it - not even death itself (16:18)! It would appear that this church of Jesus’ would have a unique relationship to and participation in the coming kingdom he announced. For, in addition to defeating the grave (and with it, him who held its power, cf. Heb.2:14; Rom.16:20), it would exercise heavenly authority to “bind” and “loose” on earth (Mt.16:19; 18:18-19).
This language of ‘loosing’ and ‘binding’ was used by the rabbis to describe their legislative and judicial pronouncements regarding what was forbidden and what was permitted. These binding decisions (presumably based on God’s revealed will in the Law and Prophets) defined one’s obligations towards both God and neighbor. In vv.15-17 we see this authority exercised in the disciplinary process executed within the church. As one commentator summarized, “the new community would exercise divinely given authority both in regulating its internal affairs and in deciding who would be admitted to and who excluded from its membership.”
It would also appear that the church’s implementation of this ‘kingdom authority’ was integral to God’s implementation of his saving purposes in the world: seeking out and protecting “these little ones” in righteousness and grace (see 18:10-14, 21-35). This is incredible, if you stop and think about it.
Similar to the promise made in 18:20 (in the context of church discipline), at the end of Matthew’s Gospel, Jesus promises: “And surely I am with you always, even to the very end of the age.” Here the context is the so-called “Great Commission,” which Jesus issued to the young “church” of the original twelve (minus one). Jesus is with his people as they go into the world to make new disciples – from Jerusalem to the very ends of the earth, from now until the end of time. Wherever (and whenever) the church is, in other words, there is the Lord in power and in Person.
The apostles likewise understood this deep and even mysterious (Eph.3:4-6; 5:32; Col.1:27) relationship of Christ with his people. Paul, for example, taught that all believers were spiritually united to Christ as the “head,” and, consequently, to one another within the corporate “body of Christ” (e.g., 1Co.12:13; Eph.5:23; Ro.12:4-5).
The apostles again corroborate Jesus’ teachings in affirming that the church, though not to be confused with the kingdom of God, is its principal representative and agent in the world. Paul, as usual, is particularly helpful, explaining how God’s eternal purposes in salvation (e.g., Eph.1:9-10; 3:11) are fulfilled in and through “his body, which is the church” (Col.1:24; Eph.1:22-23; see 2:11-3:10; 4:1-16).
The Church and the Mission of God:
But what is the relationship of the Church and its mission to the local assembly? And just what constitutes a local assembly or church? To answer the second question first, according to the NT, a local church is a group of believers in a particular area meeting regularly together for worship (including celebrating baptism and the Lord’s Supper), instruction, and fellowship (see Acts 2:41-42), as organized within a biblical structure of authority (e.g., Acts 15:6ff.). More on that below…
As we read the Book of Acts, and glean insights from the epistles of Paul, Peter, John and others, we find that the process of discipleship was primarily accomplished through local assemblies, working in concert with other congregations and their representatives (e.g., Phil.2:25) in the formation and development of new churches. In Acts 13-14, for example, this approach is paradigmatically depicted in Luke’s narration of Paul’s ministry (see especially 13:1, 42-52, 14:21-28). For the early Christians, the Great Commission was understood as a call to plant and develop churches on the one foundation of the gospel (1Co.3:5-11; Eph.2:20-22). And of course this makes sense. In Mt.28:18-20, Jesus describes the disciple-making process in terms of baptism, marking entrance into the church, and teaching the whole council of God’s will, which is one of the primary tasks of the church as “the pillar and foundation of the truth,” (1Tim.3:15). The Christian mission and the Christian church, then, went hand in hand.
Jesus has gifted his church with leadership to guide it in fulfilling its purpose (Eph.4:11ff.) by providing general oversight and instruction (1Th.5:12-13). As evidenced in Acts 14:23 and Titus 1:5, it was the apostle’s practice to appoint mature leaders in the congregations he established. Specifically, these leaders were collectively commissioned as a “body of elders” (presbyters or overseers), no doubt patterned after the Jewish synagogue. Their individual appointment followed prayerful recognition of their gifts and calling, as those raised up by the Holy Spirit (Ac.20:28), and, almost certainly, approved by the congregation at large (cf. Ac.6:3). Later, it would seem a body of deacons assisting the elders in administrative oversight and care emerged among the churches. But whatever the details of organization were exactly, we clearly see a consistent pattern of ecclesiastical authority exemplified throughout the NT (e.g., Phil.1:1; 1Tim.3:1-13; Jas.5:14; 1Pe.5:1-4; etc.).
According to Paul a local assembly was a particular but true manifestation of the one “Church of God” (e.g., 1Co.1:2; cf. 1Tim.3:15). It is this organ, as small and imperfect as it is, that was to be God’s primary instrument in making disciples of the nations. And in the course of the last 2,000 years, this seemingly weak organ has proved remarkably effective.
Saturday, November 22, 2008
Spurgeon on Fashion
Just had to share this quote from C.H. Spurgeon:
The great guide of the world is fashion and it’s god is respectability–two phantoms at which brave men laugh! How many of you look around on society to know what to do? You watch the general current and then float upon it! You study the popular breeze and shift your sails to suit it. True men do not so! You ask, “Is it fashionable? If it is fashionable, it must be done.” Fashion is the law of multitudes, but it is nothing more than the common consent of fools.
Friday, November 14, 2008
On Language and Gospel Preaching
The first and foremost task of any preacher, pastor, teacher, etc. ("etc." here blurs over all the exegetical questions of Eph.4:11, and other such texts), is to proclaim Christ in all of his glory - centered on the most (paradoxically) glorious aspect of Christ's work: the crucifixion of the God-man (Phil.2:6-8; cf. 1Co.2:2; Gal.6:14). Our pride and joy is, to use Luther's famous phrase, the "theology of the cross." This is what we're all about.
Unfortunately, unlike the apostle to the heathen (1Co.2:1, 4; cf. 2Co.10:10; 11:6), we do not always make it plain and clear. Perhaps in an effort to impress or, in defensiveness, evade the crass starkness of "the ole' rugged cross," we obscure this message with pseudo-academic language, or pop-psychological jargon, or any other form of high-falutin' nonsense. In using this sort of language, we often empty the cross of its power. And I am constantly guilty of this.
As it is a message for all people (and for the sake of clarity), we should aim to communicate the message of "Christ crucified" plainly and well.
Today, I read George Orwell's excellent essay, "Politics and the English Language." What he addresses to writers aptly applies to preachers. He offers the following questions every good writer (and/or preacher) should ask himself:
What am I trying to say?
What words will express it?
What image or idiom will make it clearer?
Is this image fresh enough to have an effect?
Can I make it shorter?
Have I said anything that is avoidably ugly (think: convoluted and unnecessarily complex)?
He then offers the following rules:
Never use a metaphor, simile or other figure of speech which you are used to seeing in print. (I.e., avoid well-worn and 'automatic' turns of phrase, which are often thoughtlessly used out of convenience and sloth. Unwittingly, Orwell argues, we often allow such hackneyed language to dictate the direction of our argumentation, rather than the other way around.)
Never use a long word where a short word will do.
If it is possible to cut out a word it, always cut it out.
Never use the passive where you can use the active.
Never us foreign phrases (e.g., Latin or Greek terms), a scientific word or a jargon word if you can think of an everyday English equivalent.
Good, common sense advice for those who are called to "persuade men" (2Co.5:11) by an open and clear proclamation of truth (2Co.4:2b). It is often harder to write or preach this way - though it seems simpler, and maybe even embarrasingly so. But this is the hard and humble work we're called to do.
Unfortunately, unlike the apostle to the heathen (1Co.2:1, 4; cf. 2Co.10:10; 11:6), we do not always make it plain and clear. Perhaps in an effort to impress or, in defensiveness, evade the crass starkness of "the ole' rugged cross," we obscure this message with pseudo-academic language, or pop-psychological jargon, or any other form of high-falutin' nonsense. In using this sort of language, we often empty the cross of its power. And I am constantly guilty of this.
As it is a message for all people (and for the sake of clarity), we should aim to communicate the message of "Christ crucified" plainly and well.
Today, I read George Orwell's excellent essay, "Politics and the English Language." What he addresses to writers aptly applies to preachers. He offers the following questions every good writer (and/or preacher) should ask himself:
What am I trying to say?
What words will express it?
What image or idiom will make it clearer?
Is this image fresh enough to have an effect?
Can I make it shorter?
Have I said anything that is avoidably ugly (think: convoluted and unnecessarily complex)?
He then offers the following rules:
Never use a metaphor, simile or other figure of speech which you are used to seeing in print. (I.e., avoid well-worn and 'automatic' turns of phrase, which are often thoughtlessly used out of convenience and sloth. Unwittingly, Orwell argues, we often allow such hackneyed language to dictate the direction of our argumentation, rather than the other way around.)
Never use a long word where a short word will do.
If it is possible to cut out a word it, always cut it out.
Never use the passive where you can use the active.
Never us foreign phrases (e.g., Latin or Greek terms), a scientific word or a jargon word if you can think of an everyday English equivalent.
Good, common sense advice for those who are called to "persuade men" (2Co.5:11) by an open and clear proclamation of truth (2Co.4:2b). It is often harder to write or preach this way - though it seems simpler, and maybe even embarrasingly so. But this is the hard and humble work we're called to do.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
