In some cases, I think criticisms of the "para-church" have been exaggerated, and I think a high view of the "Church" has been extrapolated to be a criticism of the para-church which ceases to be helpful.
Here are five things I love about the para-church.
1) INTERNATIONAL AID: Look at what Tearfund, World Vision, Christian Aid and Cafod have achieved on behalf of the Church. The DEC appeal happens and amongst the biggest hitters are the Christian relief agencies. The climate change march happens in London and the first two banners I see on the main 6 o'clock news? Tearfund and Christian Aid! Now there is a great place for Churches to make offerings to be administered by local Churches, like Newfrontiers have done with Zimbabwe and Kenya recently. That is great, but what about the Pakistan Earthquake or the Tsunami? Experienced, relevant, well organised and resourced agencies are well placed to give the poor and oppressed food, shelter, medical aid and the like. Those are all kingdom values, and if there is not the church there to do it (or the church is not able to do it efficiently) then sending an agency is the only option.
2) PUBLISHING AND THE BIBLE: The editing committees of the bibles we read are essentially para-church bodies. They have to be to avoid sectarian bias. The translation organisations like Wycliffe are essentially para-church not local church. The bible distribution agencies like The Bible Society and Gideons are essentially para-church. So if I am a good evangelical and love the word of God, I am reliant on a para-church bodies to translate, produce and distribute the Bible for me. Lots of christian publishing is effectively "para-church". My local Christian bookshop is "para-church" by some definitions. It suits me when I need a Christian book...
3) EQUIPPING LOCAL CHURCH MINISTRY: Organisations like Care for the Family, Zacharius Trust or Freedom in Christ Ministries etc produce resources and events which help to resource, network, encourage and equip Churches in their mission.
4) CAMPS AND FESTIVALS: Several of the major camps and festivals have become "para-church", or maybe "inter-church". The blessing these provide is evident. I believe in the Church and so I love things that build up the Church.
5) RESPONSIVENESS: Lots of the para-church organisations that have sprung up which do functions which could (or should!) be done by the local church tend to exist because the local church in that place or in that denomination or in that generation or in that nation did not do it. The church was failing due to lack of understanding, resistance to change, lack of resources, whatever, but there was a gap. Christians saw the gap and sought to fill it. Now I may well still hold the view that the Church is the priority, and that these things should be undertaken within a local church context, but I still have to admire and appreciate people who took huge risks, stepped out of the boat and filled a void because of the call of God.
Add it all up, and I want to hold a very high priority of the local church within a framework of a very high priority of the kingdom of God. I don't see that the two should ever compete, so if it feels like they are, I probably need to look in my own heart first.
More to the point, I don't want to become the person speaking at a para-church christian event, recommending a resource from a para-church organisation which is sold by another para-church organisation, who expresses a priority of the local Church that excludes all the people who have given me that opportunity in the first place. That would seem a little redundant.
I do believe in the local Church, which is why in some cases, I need the para-church.
2) PUBLISHING AND THE BIBLE: The editing committees of the bibles we read are essentially para-church bodies. They have to be to avoid sectarian bias. The translation organisations like Wycliffe are essentially para-church not local church. The bible distribution agencies like The Bible Society and Gideons are essentially para-church. So if I am a good evangelical and love the word of God, I am reliant on a para-church bodies to translate, produce and distribute the Bible for me. Lots of christian publishing is effectively "para-church". My local Christian bookshop is "para-church" by some definitions. It suits me when I need a Christian book...
3) EQUIPPING LOCAL CHURCH MINISTRY: Organisations like Care for the Family, Zacharius Trust or Freedom in Christ Ministries etc produce resources and events which help to resource, network, encourage and equip Churches in their mission.
4) CAMPS AND FESTIVALS: Several of the major camps and festivals have become "para-church", or maybe "inter-church". The blessing these provide is evident. I believe in the Church and so I love things that build up the Church.
5) RESPONSIVENESS: Lots of the para-church organisations that have sprung up which do functions which could (or should!) be done by the local church tend to exist because the local church in that place or in that denomination or in that generation or in that nation did not do it. The church was failing due to lack of understanding, resistance to change, lack of resources, whatever, but there was a gap. Christians saw the gap and sought to fill it. Now I may well still hold the view that the Church is the priority, and that these things should be undertaken within a local church context, but I still have to admire and appreciate people who took huge risks, stepped out of the boat and filled a void because of the call of God.
Add it all up, and I want to hold a very high priority of the local church within a framework of a very high priority of the kingdom of God. I don't see that the two should ever compete, so if it feels like they are, I probably need to look in my own heart first.
More to the point, I don't want to become the person speaking at a para-church christian event, recommending a resource from a para-church organisation which is sold by another para-church organisation, who expresses a priority of the local Church that excludes all the people who have given me that opportunity in the first place. That would seem a little redundant.
I do believe in the local Church, which is why in some cases, I need the para-church.
4 comments:
I see a strange disconnect in your argument here in that you seem to imply that "the local Church" is the "beautiful bride". Yes, the Church is the bride of Christ, and we want it to be beautiful. But where does your idea come from that this bride is made up from local church congregations to the exclusion of para-church organisations? No, it is made up of all Christians, including those who gather in local congregations and those involved in para-church organisations. Yes, the latter should also gather with other Christians in churches as far as their work allows, but that is by no means a condition of being a part of the bride. I certainly hope you are not trying to preach that salvation depends on the work of attending a local congregation.
So let's work on making a beautiful bride made up from the interaction of Christians working together both locally and more widely, the latter often being through para-church groups.
I certainly hope you are not trying to preach that salvation depends on the work of attending a local congregation
No, I am not.
But where does your idea come from that this bride is made up from local church congregations to the exclusion of para-church organisations?
I think it is implied sometimes, whether accidental or not, that the only "real" church is local church congregations. I am pretty sure this post suggests my definitions are slightly wider.
So let's work on making a beautiful bride made up from the interaction of Christians working together both locally and more widely, the latter often being through para-church groups.
Which is the point I make for points 1, 2 and 4 and the final paragraph.
Thanks. Perhaps my implied criticism should have been less of you and more of the position that your post was in fact going against - the idea which some seem to have that the local church is all that counts and that para-church groups are of questionable legitimacy because allegedly they have no biblical foundation. Of course they do have a biblical foundation: Paul and the other apostles gathered together members of different local congregations to work together in church planting and in providing aid to the poor, which between them cover much of what modern para-church groups do.
Post a Comment