Is not a Para-Church Ministry Really Church to Church?

[Dr. K.R. Allen]

Ok in another thread the idea was presented that the primary focus of Scripture is on the local church and that other ministries were "para-church" and seemingly such statements like "para-church" often imply that the para ministry is not as "official," (maybe?) or not at "central," (maybe?), or "less important," (maybe?) than the local church.

In my doctoral work I wrestled with this very issue and I am curious as to the thoughts of others here.

The word para is somewhat vague to me because it means that someone is ministering to the church as if they as another believer are not of the church. That seems like a violation of the law of non-contradiction.

Why?

Ok well think about it. If John Doe is saved is he not a part of the body of Christ? Surely he would be if 1 Cor. 12 means anything at all. A believer is baptized into the body of Christ. Paul was saved (Acts 9) and then later he joined a local church (Acts 9:26). But then he left to go out and establish, serve, and minister to multiple churches.

But some will say he was an apostle. Ok granted for a moment but there is more.

Would it not be more correct for us to believe or call things church to church related ministries instead of para-church ministries? Or maybe a body of Christ ministry to localalized body of Christ ministries?

I ask because is it not true if a believer like Phoebe, who was not an apostle, left one church to go deliver a letter of Paul to another church that she was a believer from one church serving another church under the authority of a church leader like Paul?

And what would or should we think of a Titus? Titus was not an apostles but he established and ministered to multiple regions and thus multiple churches by appointing elders in each town/city (Titus 1:5). Was he a para-church ministry or a believer to other believers ministry functioning under the authority of another believer Paul? Did he represent a church to church ministry?

I find that it seems like the term para is used by some to suggest that such a ministry is less than sanctioned by the word of God and thus is also used to imply that the local church really does not need anything para (along side it) to help.

But that seems to me to bifurcate the idea of believers serving others believers or churches helping other churches or that God calls out leaders who sometimes serve more than one local church.

The way it looks to me in Scripture that some will serve in localized settings (specific city or geographical regions) and others will serve on a more broad scale setting (multiple geographic regions) but both have a place in serving the body of Christ as a whole so that people are built up in the grace of the Lord.

Could it not be that this is the error of reductionism, i.e. a failure to see it as a both/and instead of an either/or dichotomy?

Thoughts?

 

[steve]

Re: Is not a Para-Church Ministry Really a Church to Church?

I find that it seems like the term para is used by some to suggest that such a ministry is less than sanctiopned by the word of God and thus is also used to imply that the local church really does not need anything para (along side it) to help.

i agree, but i also believe that we get too stuffy about defining what a church is.
it can be a fluid thing, john can worship on sunday in a formal setting and again on wednesday evening in his own home with his neighbors. it is all church even if it has no connection to people who have the stamp of authority bestowed upon them by other authorities.

 

[Dr. K.R. Allen]

Re: Is not a Para-Church Ministry Really a Church to Church?

it is all church even if it has no connection to people who have the stamp of authority bestowed upon them by other authorities.

I'm not sure that is the case. Of course all authority is by God from the Spirit. That much I would agree with.

But I'm not sure we can say there are people who have no connection to some authority, if that is what you mean by the above. Do you know of any disciple in the NT that ministered anywhere who was not under the authority of someone, or commissioned (sent forth) or joined together with another for accountability? If so I am simply not aware of it. Too I would imagine that this is never the goal of any disciple of Christ to be without a connection to others for accountability. In the NT believers were under elders. The apostles were accountable to each other. The elders would often meet together. It kinda undermines the defintion of a disciple in light of Christ's teaching (Matt. 10:24-25; Matt. 28:19-20), does it not to claim one can be alone and in no need of another? It reminds me of one Evangelist who said: "show me someone who is not a disciple of another and I'll show you someone who does not know much about Christ and his Great Commission."

I think those who criticize para-church ministries are often concerned because they see the para-church ministries sometimes as a people that does desire to have no connection to another or to any local churches. In that regard I think there might be some legitimacy to their concern. We all need others to help us in our walk, which I would imagine you too would believe.

I can't find anyone who was not accountable to another. Even the apostles were accountable to one another or to other elders (see Acts 15). Now that much of it seems clear to me that there was always a connection to another. I don't find any lone ranger Christians in the Bible who were not connected to others for accountabilityor under authority of others. Do you know any verse that says someone was not under an authority? I can't find any verses to support that. Too that would seem like pride if someone does think they can live a godly life without being a disciple or under authority somewhere in some way to some visible person (or portion of Christ's body). If the body is truly joined together then there has to be some accountability between the various joints in the body just like in a human body, i.e. if the joints are healthy.

But what I do seem to find is churches helping other churches. Or is is better to say believers from one region or one church are helping believers in another region or church? Is that the most accurate way to describe the broader ministries in Christ's body? I see some ministers who are called to serve in one region, like James did in Jerusalem. But then we also see someone like Titus who served in multiple regions. Is that not reflective of the different callings, one to a local area and another to a broader area?

I see all of the local churches coming together in Acts 15 to minister to each other through representatives and then these selected representatives taking that decision back to the local churches. I see people like Priscilla and Aquilla traveling around and people like Phoebe traveling around from one church to another (though always accountable to another and not just unto themselves).

What I'm more curious about is should we use the term "para" or should we call it something else that reflects a more biblical or clearer idea than what some have used.

 

[steve]

i very clearly said;

john can worship on sunday in a formal setting and again on wednesday evening in his own home with his neighbors.

how do you assume no connection?
how am i claiming

one can be alone and in no need of another?

[/quote]
what defines "church" in the eyes of YHWH?
can people assemble together and have a legitimate "church service" without being specifically under an authority authorised by a successively authorised authority?
it seems that the answer to this question is important in order to discuss your question.

 

[Dr. K.R. Allen]

Then do you know of any church that met in the NT that was not under a set of elders, elder, or connected to the authority of an apostle? If there is one I'm not aware of it. Seems like there was always a discipleship connection to all believers and churches from local regions to larger regions.

 

[steve]

Then do you know of any church that met in the NT that was not under a set of elders, elder, or connected to the authority of an apostle? If there is one I'm not aware of it. Seems like there was always a discipleship connection to all believers and churches from local regions to larger regions.

was every circumstance written down?
can we "prove" a theory just by the absence of additional information?

if a slave or servant had been in a household where christianity had been embraced and who had accepted the truth, was then for some reason sold or sent to another family in an area that the gospel had not reached. if they then shared the good news and it was recieved and embraced in that area and a fellowship had started up, would you judge that group of believers as not being a church because of the lack of apostolic succession?

Act 19:1 ¶ And it came to pass, that, while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul having passed through the upper coasts came to Ephesus: and finding certain disciples,


Act 19:2 He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost.


Act 19:3 And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John's baptism.


Act 19:4 Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.


Act 19:5 When they heard [this], they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.


Act 19:6 And when Paul had laid [his] hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied.

notice that this was a group of believers who obviously were under no apostolic succession. no one to sit at the feet of until paul came along.
do you not allow them to be viewed as a church before he showed up? yes, paul of course had much to impart to them. but that does not negate who they were before he got there.

when the christians were dispersed from jerusalem by rome they were in many diferent stages of growth. not every family would have an authorised version of apostolic succession with them, not even a bible. but the gospel spread mightily in spite of that. their assemblies were not churches even though they had the Holy Spirit in them?

 

[Dr. K.R. Allen]

Ahhhhhh I think I see the problem.

We're doing what so often happens. We're working with different definitions to the same word church. Either that or I am talking about norms and you're talking about exceptions to the norm. Or maybe both.

Here is what I am trying to get at.

Any person who gets saved at that moment becomes a disciple and is placed in the family of Christ. The large family of Christ is also called in Scripture the body of Christ.

Wherever that person resides that individual, in his or her particular geographical region, would be under or connected to believers in that area (if possible, Paul was almost excluded from membership in Jersusalem but we clearly see his goal in Acts 9; he desired to join and be connected), which is the "local church" or a smaller segment of the body of Christ that has come together for the purpose of the gospel.

In each geographical region the believers were considered to be one church (whoever was of faith in Christ in that region) and all believers were connected to either one another or to some leader in the church even if by way of extension.

So it would breakdown as follows:
1. Disciple (a believer who is devoted to learning from someone or a set of people more mature than he or she)
2. Multiple disciples who are collected together in one geographical region for the pure of the gospel (local church)
3. All of the disciples who are a part of the family of Christ (all of the saints; the body of Christ).

In Acts 2:42 the text says people were devoted to the apostles' doctrine/teaching. In some places the letters of the apostles went out to saints but not per se to local churches. Sometimes they even wrote letters to individuals.

So it seems that if a person lived in an area where there was no established local church this person would be a disciple of those in the larger body or of another body somewhere else even if not close enough to that local body or to the spiritual leader(s). In other words those people would be saints who read some letter or writing of one of the apostles and thus by that placing themselves under the authority of one or more of the apostles if they could not actually find or did not have a local collected body of believers.

My point in all of this is to go back to say, would this not then mean it is incorrect to say someone doing a ministry as a believer in Christ is really "outside" the church? If someone is a believer and they are using their spiritual gifts, while being connected to a set of believers somewhere in some way or another, to minister to the larger body of Christ it seems like it would not be a "non-church based ministry to a church," (along side/para church ministry) but rather a portion of the body of Christ (people of Christ) ministering to another portion of the body of Christ, would it not?

What is so often-called or termed as a para-church ministry does not seem to fit the exact ideas as set forth in Scripture and thus maybe because of bad terminology people like to dismiss a broader scale ministry (one serving multiple regions and multiple believers from various areas) because they believe only that the local church should be doing ministry.

But would not the "anti-para-church" ideology be unfounded if we see the body of Christ as interconnected with local churches simply being the manifestation of believers in one particular geographical region?

 

[steve]

the question only exists within the confines of the artificial traditions-of-man hierachical structure that "churches" have devolved into.

in the true "church" with Yeshua as the head all believers are fitly joined together with the head in charge. they are all doing as he directs, not organizing in order to serve him.

 

[Anonymous]

Dr. Allen,

I may be off the bullseye, but your recent post stirred up a thought that is somewhat related. I hope I am on the target, perhaps a ring or two off center. The idea of para-church ministry is an interesting one to me. I have seen for instance, churches that established a christian school. In a relatively short time that ministry ceased being a church with a school and became a school that had a church. Similar circumstances exist within extra-church ministries and the churches that fund and benefit from their ministries. I find numerous references to the founding of churches in the NT Scriptures, their locations, their ministries and even some of their members, but no where do I find NT reference to ministries outside the purview of local, visible congregations. I have therefore concluded that any extra or para church ministry ought to be under the umbrella of the authority and protection of a local church. Those that aren't are only able to avoid being loose cannons by putting in place a strong board of advisors, who take the place of church authority. Since Jesus built churches and not boards, I prefer congregations of believers, led by the Holy Spirit to give oversight to these larger ministries. Those who have neither, are causing severe damage to the credibility of the person of and the Word of God.

 

[Dr. K.R. Allen]

Steve,

So you do not think the body of Christ had leaders in it that other believers were supposed to be accountable to? Or am I misunderstanding what you are saying? If so what do you then think of Matthew 10:24-25 and the texts were there were elders over the believers in the NT churches (Acts 14:23; Eph. 4:11-12; Titus 1:5; 1 Thess. 5:12; Hebrews 13:17)?

Was/is biblical accountability a bad thing or something? Or is it something you just don't like or want in your own personal life? I'm confused as to how you interpret the accountability or organization that we read of in the NT? Maybe we are defining something different here but when I think of and define the term hierarchy I see it as simply order. There seems to have been a clearly defined order in the NT churches where there were clearly leaders who led others.

This is kinda of off topic but it sounds like to me you are saying that the NT churches did not have organization with leaders in it (maybe what you are calling a hierarchy or something?). If so then what should we think of those verses above? How could Paul say to the Thessalonians they were to "respect those who labor among you and are over you in the Lord and admonish you" if there was not organization in the NT churches and in the overall body of Christ? What did over them mean if it was not someone that others were under?

 

[Dr. K.R. Allen]

John that is what I'm really trying to discern.

Is it even the right term to use "para" or is it something that we have been taught to use by those with an emphasis on the local church? And believe me I agree with you on the importance of the local church. I'm just curious is a para ministry really a church to other churches ministry? You and I both being at various times or another from or associated with Independent Baptist backgrounds I have always heard the term "para" as if it were a bad thing. But in re-thinking it I'm not sure that the term actually fits if we accept the idea that all people are a part of the body of Christ.

By that I mean if we were to ask the apostles would they say, no there is not really anyone outside of the church (body of Christ) so any ministry being done is actually not para but actual church to church or believer to believer or multiple believers from one region ministering to other believers in another region.

I'm curious if the term "para" is even the correct term? If each and every believer belongs within the body of Christ is it possible that what others have coined as para ministries is really something else...that other term is what I am trying to figure out if it exists. Is it properly something else, something with a better term?

Certainly there is believers going from one region to another in the Bible to minister to others. I'm not sure what we could, should, or rightly can call that? Traveling ministers? I don't know.

 

[DaPastor]

Ok in another thread the idea was presented that the primary focus of Scripture is on the local church and that other ministries were "para-church" and seemingly such statements like "para-church" often imply that the para ministry is not as "official," (maybe?) or not at "central," (maybe?), or "less important," (maybe?) than the local church.

I believe it is important to define "para church" in order to discuss this issue clearly. The prefix para- means "beside" or "alongside" in the Greek. Generally speaking, a para-church ministry is "a Christian faith based organization which seeks to come alongside the local church, independent of 'church' oversight, in order to provide something that the organization perceives to be lacking within the 'church.'"

In my doctoral work I wrestled with this very issue and I am curious as to the thoughts of others here.

The word para is somewhat vague to me because it means that someone is ministering to the church as if they as another believer are not of the church. That seems like a violation of the law of non-contradiction.

Why?

Ok well think about it. If John Doe is saved is he not a part of the body of Christ? Surely he would be if 1 Cor. 12 means anything at all. A believer is baptized into the body of Christ. Paul was saved (Acts 9) and then later he joined a local church (Acts 9:26). But then he left to go out and establish, serve, and minister to multiple churches.

I also think it is important to define "church," which I will do on a future post. The assumption above may is that Scripture only affirms one definition of "church." Is this a correct assumption? Morevoer, does Paul's teaching in 1 Corinthians 12 have it's primary understanding centered on a world wide hermeneutic, or on a local church hermeneutic? Another question, when does a believer become "baptized into the body of Christ?" Is it at conversion or another time? Yes, Paul did join a local church. The question is, however, did Paul minister apart from the local church or as an emissary of a local church? (be careful)

However, I think some points have been brought up here that need clarity.
But some will say he was an apostle. Ok granted for a moment but there is more.

Would it not be more correct for us to believe or call things church to church related ministries instead of para-church ministries? Or maybe a body of Christ ministry to localalized body of Christ ministries?

The question that is more important in my mind is this: does Scripture encourage, advocate, or model para-church structures?

I ask because is it not true if a believer like Phoebe, who was not an apostle, left one church to go deliver a letter of Paul to another church that she was a believer from one church serving another church under the authority of a church leader like Paul?

Did she do this apart from local church structure and ministry is a better question in my thinking?

And what would or should we think of a Titus? Titus was not an apostles but he established and ministered to multiple regions and thus multiple churches by appointing elders in each town/city (Titus 1:5). Was he a para-church ministry or a believer to other believers ministry functioning under the authority of another believer Paul? Did he represent a church to church ministry?

I do not know if it is relevant concerning whether Titus was an apostle or not at this point. The question is more like this in my mind: Was Titus doing what he was doing apart from the authority and direct connection of the functioning church structure or not?

I find that it seems like the term para is used by some to suggest that such a ministry is less than sanctioned by the word of God and thus is also used to imply that the local church really does not need anything para (along side it) to help

.

There are basically four views concerning this topic:

1. The parachurch is merely standing beside the church helping where it is weak.
2. The parachurch is a rogue element of believers replacing church structure with what it perceives as a better structure.
3. The parachurch is merely a different expression of the church.
4. The parachurch is outside of Biblical authority of what constitutes the church and should not exist.

But that seems to me to bifurcate the idea of believers serving others believers or churches helping other churches or that God calls out leaders who sometimes serve more than one local church.

Since serving others is to be a continuous object of all Christians, this would seem to be redefining the issue from my perspective. It is not merely about Christians serving Christians, it is about what authority structure are Christians to be working with as they serve other Christians in my mind.

The way it looks to me in Scripture that some will serve in localized settings (specific city or geographical regions) and others will serve on a more broad scale setting (multiple geographic regions) but both have a place in serving the body of Christ as a whole so that people are built up in the grace of the Lord.

Again, this is a continuation of the restructuring the argument idea.

Could it not be that this is the error of reductionism, i.e. a failure to see it as a both/and instead of an either/or dichotomy?

I suppose that it could be reductionism either way depending upon which point one would like to emphasize. Although I have never seen reductionism used for the idea of "failure to see it as a both/and in stead of an either/or dichotomy." None the less, a question should be asked regarding all of this: Has the Scripture given us the basic pattern of church or does man have the freedom to create his own pattern?

Blessings for now...

 

[Dr. K.R. Allen]

The issue is really

about what authority structure are Christians to be working with as they serve other Christians in my mind.

That is why I lean towards the idea that we might be missing the balance a bit by focusing on the "para" aspect portion of it.

It also seems to come down to the local church definition.

Do we define local church as all of the believers in one geographical region like the apostles called them, i.e. church of Ephesus, Church of Corinth, etc, or do we have the right to alter that and call the church by a smaller more restricted sense? If so what gives us that right to alter the way to define a church if we choose to calssify it by some other way other than all the believers in one region.

What it looks like to me in Scripture is that there is only geographical churches (all of the believers in one region) and thus in that region are believers and multiple leaders. Then from there those believers are sometimes called to go serve other believers in another area.

Thus the key would not be the "para" aspect but the relational connection and authority/disciple connection. If this is true it would explain why Titus could do what he did because he was in a way connected to Paul and also serving other churches and people in those multiple churches by raising up and appointing elders in those geographical regions.

The focus seems to me to be more on the leader/disciple aspect instead of the term para.

Oh, and the reductionism aspect was applying to the idea of instead of seeing it as a both/and one might be reducing it to just one element instead of both.

 

[DaPastor]

The issue is really

about what authority structure are Christians to be working with as they serve other Christians in my mind.

That is why I lean towards the idea that we might be missing the balance a bit by focusing on the "para" aspect portion of it.

From my perspective, when one leaves behind the Biblical structure, one is moving outside of true balance. I don't see balance as an attempt to equalize concepts outside of scripture with concepts inside of Scripture. I understand balance as looking to the extreme ends of Scriptural truth and making an attempt to blend those extremes.

It also seems to come down to the local church definition.

Do we define local church as all of the believers in one geographical region like the apostles called them, i.e. church of Ephesus, Church of Corinth, etc, or do we have the right to alter that and call the church by a smaller more restricted sense? If so what gives us that right to alter the way to define a church if we choose to calssify it by some other way other than all the believers in one region.

Indeed! I believe that Presbyters oversaw "city churches" not a singulur assembly of believers. I do not believe that Scripture teaches mini assemblies that are not under the authority of a single plurality of elders. Eldership governed all the believers within a city.

What it looks like to me in Scripture is that there is only geographical churches (all of the believers in one region) and thus in that region are believers and multiple leaders. Then from there those believers are sometimes called to go serve other believers in another area.

Yet, the church structure was one and the same in every location.

Thus the key would not be the "para" aspect but the relational connection and authority/disciple connection. If this is true it would explain why Titus could do what he did because he was in a way connected to Paul and also serving other churches and people in those multiple churches by raising up and appointing elders in those geographical regions.

Yet, we still do not see any authority system outside of the local (city) church.

The focus seems to me to be more on the leader/disciple aspect instead of the term para.

From my perspective, this is because their was no "para," it was all under a unified structural system. Although there are some problems with this position, I tend to lean toward the side of scriptural patternism. It seems to me that if I am going to error, I would prefer to error on the side of the clear or implied patterns than creating my own system to achieve Bibilical results. Just my two cents.

Blessings

 

[DaPastor]

what defines "church" in the eyes of YHWH?

I think this is a very good question, and there are entire books written on the subject. I would suggest, without going into all the passages on the topic, that it is a sound hermeneutic to emphasize what God emphasizes. With that in mind, we should recognize that when the word "church" is used throughout the New Testament, 80% of the times it refers to a "local" church. This leads into the next question...

can people assemble together and have a legitimate "church service" without being specifically under an authority authorised by a successively authorised authority?

Although Scripture provides allowance for this in the sense of the "universal church," I would suggest that it would be an "out of order" church. Why do I suggest that? Apostle Paul told Titus that he should "set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city..." (Titus 1:5) What was lacking? Evidently what was lacking was that there were many believers meeting together who needed Godly leadership to equip them. Paul thought that this was so important that this verse ends with "...as I ordered you (LITV)." This is in the imperative in the Greek. This implies rather strongly that believers who are not under Church authority are walking ouside of God's "set order."

Just my two cents...

 

[DaPastor]

Dr. Allen,

I may be off the bullseye, but your recent post stirred up a thought that is somewhat related. I hope I am on the target, perhaps a ring or two off center. The idea of para-church ministry is an interesting one to me. I have seen for instance, churches that established a christian school. In a relatively short time that ministry ceased being a church with a school and became a school that had a church. Similar circumstances exist within extra-church ministries and the churches that fund and benefit from their ministries. I find numerous references to the founding of churches in the NT Scriptures, their locations, their ministries and even some of their members, but no where do I find NT reference to ministries outside the purview of local, visible congregations. I have therefore concluded that any extra or para church ministry ought to be under the umbrella of the authority and protection of a local church. Those that aren't are only able to avoid being loose cannons by putting in place a strong board of advisors, who take the place of church authority. Since Jesus built churches and not boards, I prefer congregations of believers, led by the Holy Spirit to give oversight to these larger ministries. Those who have neither, are causing severe damage to the credibility of the person of and the Word of God.

John,

I am in essential agreement with you here with one caveat. I see local churches as "city churches," not a mere congregation. I am not saying you don't believe that... I am just clarifying my position on this topic.

 

[Dr. K.R. Allen]

I tend to lean toward the side of scriptural patternism.

I agree that if there is a pattern in the text of Scripture we are to try and follow it (1 Tim. 1:13). A pattern was a visible example set forth by Christ or the apostles. I agree there.

But the question remains and is the real issue, what is to be done until "order" as you call it, can be set in place with local elders to rule over a set of believers who have no shepherd.

If we apply the law of love does not Christ's command to love them as he has loved us require us from one region to do all we can to serve those in regions where they have been rejected, ousted, or without any godly leaders to guide them? What shall be done until local elders can be there for them and when they are sheep without shepherds?

I would say we do all we can to love them, encourage them, minister to them, and pray that in time God uses our efforts, and the efforts of others, to in fact do what Titus later did, establish local order when possible. But in the meantime would you not do all you can to love and lead like Paul did with his distant disciples until local churches could be established?

That is why I do not see it as an either or. It looks like to me that if a circumstance has arisen where people are without a shepherd, not because of their own choosing or because of any sin on their part (like with people who hate biblical authority), that we believers from other geographical regions are obligated by the law of love to serve them until God raises up new leaders their locally.

 

[DaPastor]

I tend to lean toward the side of scriptural patternism.

I agree that if there is a pattern in the text of Scripture we are to try and follow it (1 Tim. 1:13). A pattern was a visible example set forth by Christ or the apostles. I agree there.

But the question remains and is the real issue, what is to be done until "order" as you call it, can be set in place with local elders to rule over a set of believers who have no shepherd.

If we apply the law of love does not Christ's command to love them as he has loved us require us from one region to do all we can to serve those in regions where they have been rejected, ousted, or without any godly leaders to guide them? What shall be done until local elders can be there for them and when they are sheep without shepherds?

I would say we do all we can to love them, encourage them, minister to them, and pray that in time God uses our efforts, and the efforts of others, to in fact do what Titus later did, establish local order when possible. But in the meantime would you not do all you can to love and lead like Paul did with his distant disciples until local churches could be established?

That is why I do not see it as an either or. It looks like to me that if a circumstance has arisen where people are without a shepherd, not because of their own choosing or because of any sin on their part (like with people who hate biblical authority), that we believers from other geographical regions are obligated by the law of love to serve them until God raises up new leaders their locally.

I agree that our love is to be constantly extended to those without Shepherds. Yes, believers are to be encouraged, ministered to, discipled and prayed with, no doubt. It should be noted that the New Testament pattern did not create para-church organizations outside of the church structure to accomplish this goal.

You ask the question "But in the meantime would you not do all you can to love and lead like Paul did with his distant disciples until local churches could be established?" This is actually changing the argument, brother. This argument is based upon the assumption that doing all one can do requires the establishing of para-church organizations. I would suggest that Biblical love "rejoices in truth," and since God's Word is truth, we should do all we can do to love and lead people in accordance with the patterns established by Christ and the Apostles. My assumption, therefore, is that the tenor of Scripture encourages Biblical patterns as the foundation for Biblical ministries and that para-church ministries are a substitute. While a para-church ministry may meet a particular need or two of a believer, it is like feeding a group of homeless people partial meals hoping that they will become healthy. Furthermore, I would suggest that while para-churches heal people in some areas, they actually lead to more problems than they solve.

I will end with this quote: "Moses was admonished of God when he was about to make the tabernacle: for, see, saith he, that thou make all things according to the pattern shewed to thee in the mount (hebrews 8:5)."

 

[steve]

So you do not think the body of Christ had leaders in it that other believers were supposed to be accountable to? Or am I misunderstanding what you are saying? If so what do you then think of Matthew 10:24-25 and the texts were there were elders over the believers in the NT churches (Acts 14:23; Eph. 4:11-12; Titus 1:5; 1 Thess. 5:12; Hebrews 13:17)?

ok, lets start with matt 10:22-25

Mat 10:22 And ye shall be hated of all [men] for my name's sake: but he that endureth to the end shall be saved.

Mat 10:23 But when they persecute you in this city, flee ye into another: for verily I say unto you, Ye shall not have gone over the cities of Israel, till the Son of man be come.

Mat 10:24 The disciple is not above [his] master, nor the servant above his lord.

Mat 10:25 It is enough for the disciple that he be as his master, and the servant as his lord. If they have called the master of the house Beelzebub, how much more [shall they call] them of his household?

huh? this passage is telling us that we cannot expect to be treated any better than our master, Yeshua himself.
you would use it to promote a master/servant relationship in his body between believers? really?

Act 14:23 And when they had ordained them elders in every church, and had prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord, on whom they believed.

elders, with no specified authority over others

Eph 4:11 And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;
Eph 4:12 For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:

gifts, for the perfecting, ministry and edifying. with no specified authority over others

Tts 1:5 ¶ For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed thee:

set in order. was it done by teaching and reasoning with them? or in an autocratic, controlling, heavy handed way?
and, we see elders again. with no specified powers and responsibilities.

1Th 5:12 ¶ And we beseech you, brethren, to know them which labour among you, and are over you in the Lord, and admonish you;
1Th 5:13 And to esteem them very highly in love for their work's sake. [And] be at peace among yourselves.

know them who are over you in the Lord and admonish you and esteem them highly.
ok, we are getting a little more meat here. admonish=warn, do i obey all of the "leaders" who warn me? well, since many disagree with each other, that would not be possible. do i have the responsibility to weigh the warnings prayerfully and accept the ones that i believe come from our Lord?
assuredly!
the admonishment points me toward my responsibilities in my walk before the Lord, not toward my obedience of the elders.

Hbr 13:17 Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that [is] unprofitable for you.

again, do we obey them in the context of them pointing us toward our responsibilities in the Lord?
or in ruling over us, are we just responsible for doing what they tell us and for believing what they tell us to believe?

where are the specific powers of the elders enumerated?
are they given the power and responsibility to decide them?

lets picture a horizontal scale of accountability, with 0% at the far left and 100% at the far right. i know that you probably picture me on the left end with pretty much zero accountability. let me start to show you where i am by examining the contrasting position.
i have experienced a church in which the pastor presumed to tell people who they should marry. 100% accountability would dictate obediance, correct? yet i am sure that you would not support that bastardization of the Word.
for almost 100% of us, the truth of poly was not acceptable to the eldership of the churches that we attended at the time that we were led into this truth by the Holy Spirit. according to a "proper" understanding of leadership we would have been required to reject it. but "mysticism" reigned as we accepted what the Holy Spirit was teaching us, above what the elders wanted us to believe.
lets say that i were in a store and a 7 yr old child saw me slip a candy bar into my pocket and walk out with out paying for it. lets say that the child belongs to an apostate church. does that child have any eldership over me? no, UNTIL that child admonishes me that my action is wrong before the Lord! not before,not after. only when they are pointing me in our Lord's direction.

lets say that i was an ordained minister, with authorized succession. where on the org. chart does that place me in relation to you, to the leaders of this board, to the pastors on this board, to the eldership of any church that i might fellowship in?
i say, "dude, we are all in this boat together. lets let the Captain be the Captain and we will all work together with Him as the authority, lets not try to micro-manage each others lives but point each other toward the wishes of the Captain".
i know, it takes away all of our power over each other

 

[Dr. K.R. Allen]

Steve,

This is a little bit of a longer post since to try and be thorough to your questions I'll do my best to cover the concepts in a little more detail here.

Accountability can be a very good thing. Yes, a lot of people have been abused by others in the ministry. And yes some have been ousted for unjust reasons, and some for just reasons according to Matthew 18.

My point in this post has not had anything to do with this ministry per se. Although I can testify to the benefit of it and to the blessing it is to have good shepherds, some of which are here and some of which are in other places.

All of those passages boil down to one key issue, starting first with the Matthew text to the Thessalonians text, which is discipleship. The entire NT was about an orderly discipleship of believers.

Believers were to look at someone's life, love, and character and then seek to follow them and learn from them. The younger were to look up to the older and imitate that. I think Hebrews 13:7 summarizes the essence of what I am attempting to say here and even over all about para ministries or what I thnk can rightly be called discipleship ministries where churches serve other churches through the work of individual believers: "Remember your leaders, those who spoke to you the word of God. Consider the outcome of their way of life, and imitate there faith."

Christ set up his plan for us to be disciples. His disciples learned from him. They then in turn took under their leadership others and taught them. All of those verses, every one of them, is about the great commission of someone taking another to disciple them to help them grow up in the Lord. Elders in the NT were those who were mature enough to disciple another and were entrusted with the care of families. Those under their care were their students/disciples.

It is not an issue of whether or not we are in 100% agreement or not. That seems to me to sidestep the real issue, which is one of the heart. I've met some who will use just about anything to justify their rebellion to where they can claim they do not need to listen to this person or that person because the person has this error or that error. In some of these cases it is nothing more a self-righteous justification to escape accountability (sometimes due to fear or other times due to pride).

We all need other believers and we all can indeed learn from one another. That is indeed true. But also the Spirit of the Lord raises up leaders, calls them, equips them, and sends them forth and they abound all around us if we will look for them in the Spirit asking the Lord to provide for us.

The real question is, do we and are we willing, eager, and open to be a disciple to someone who we see and recognize by the Spirit to be older than us in the Lord. Do we find the Holy Spirit pointing out to us a person or set of persons that we can see as gifts to us, gracious gifts, who we can build a friendship with where we are able to come under them and learn from them and with them. We may see some areas where we doctrinally disagree, yet even so we may by the Spirit, and should if walking in the Spirit, still find that in other areas outside of those doctrinal issues where we differ find that person or set of persons may teach us a lot about life, love, the Lord and how to live out a God honoring life where we display his character.

Some of the greatest teachings in my life came from men who I did not line up with exactly point by point in doctrine. Some of these men, some pastors and others professors (and even some just mature believers who were using their serving gifts), taught me things that came from their long life of living for the Lord and even in their mistakes. I am thankful to have been under them and taught by them. I am grateful unto God for them and can not do anything but give God praise for bringing those men into my life by his Spirit. And yes, even some of those now would reject this doctrine of polygyny. Yet still too, in other areas I still find and still go to them in those other areas where I can because I value their love, their heart, and their character in so many other areas.

Just a question here, do not feel like you have to answer if you do not so desire. Feel free to answer it your own mind if you so desire. But I think each us has to ask ourselves, are we really eager and willing to be a disciple of someone who is older and more mature than us in the Lord. Thus, who can you say you are under, who do you willingly seek to submit yourself to and consider to be wiser than you, older than you in the Lord, and someone or a set of people that you are eager to listen to, follow, and be taught by on regular basis?

For me that answer is easy though not so easy to sometimes practice. I value discipleship in my heart and have spent years seeking to learn at the feet of others older and wiser than I am in the Lord and his Word. Some of those men are right here now. I've shared at some of the past retreats that men like Pastor John and Professor Bill Luck are two, of numerous ones, that I can mention who have discipled me specifically over the past year or so and I value their leadership, teaching, training, and their guidance over me. I do not find it too oppressive, heavy handed, or dangerous or anything of the like. Even when we differ I still find more than not that they are trying to use their gifts and knowledge for my own good and for that I am grateful. I see in discipleship the Spirit of the Lord whereby through those older than me he uses them to guide me, correct me, challenge me, and even at times along the way I am able to return some times something back to them that blesses them.

There are so many here I could talk about and how they have touched my life and how I have learend from them. Those on staff here are a blessing and have been a blessing to me. In many ways they individually have touched my life, taught me, and shared with me portions of their life that has enriched my walk.

My point?

Discipleship is essential to rightly live out a balanced and healthy Christian life. Learning to bond with others, learning to look up to others who are strong in the Lord and his Word and are mature theologians so we can imitate them in the Word, learning to respect others, learning to learn from others, even others who differ and are not on the same page in non-essential doctrines, and learning to love and be loved by those older and younger are key aspects of a Spirit filled life.

So, to answer all of your questions asked there at the end: we are to find and follow our spiritual leaders as much as we possibly can when we see the marks of Christ living in them. Are we to obey them? Yes when they are in obedience to Christ. As Paul said to his disciples: "Be imtitators of me, as I am of Christ" (1 Cor. 11:1).

What so often happens to all of us though, because of pride, is that we make it so hard to even give someone older in the Lord an opportunity to guide us because we have a hard heart, or because we have been hurt in the past and thus our heart is closed, or because we think we know more than they do, or because we see what we perceive to be a doctrinal error in some non-essential area and thus we close ourselves up to such a degree that in practice we really do not value the art of being a disciple of someone or a set of others in the Lord. In such cases we often wind up missing something the Lord would liked to have taught us or given us.

I suppose it is just like parenting. When the children are young they often do not value the love, wisdom, guidance, and teaching of the parent(s). But as the children age and mature they come to love and appreciate those who know more than they do. Often later in life they begin to go back and begin to ask the parent(s) for wisdom and for advice and counsel.

Discipleship is the same way in God's family. When we find someone older than us it behooves us to go be a student of that person and to learn all we can from that person. It does not mean we are required to be their puppet or slave. It does, however, mean we in our hearts look for ways in which we can be a disciple of those older than us in the Lord.

There is, of course, one group of people who would differ with this theological position. The Quakers. Some consciously embrace this life and theology, others embrace the ideology even if done unconsciously without knowing the name. They believe in divine revelation being given directly to each and every saint all throughout time, and thus they reject/undermine/explain differently these discipleship texts and espouse a full fledged doctrine of continual revelation. But they are also honest enough to also reject any man's headship over a woman too because their doctrine of egalitarianism which is at least consistent, i.e. they do not claim equality of all believers and then still claim a functional leadership role of the man in the home. To them no one has any functional assignments that differ from one to the next. In their meetings they will even sit around with no teacher and wait on the Spirit to give a revelation to someone. The inner revelations take precedence of the objective written word.

For those of us who see functional order in the Godhead and in the relation between Christ to man and man to woman (1 Cor. 11) we also see the value of functional order in the body of Christ as well where the younger come under the older in the Spirit realm. This is so because we believe that people mature in the knowledge and application of the objective word of God which is alive and powerful to transform the lives of those who get serious with it in their studies and in life application.