Balancing Ecclesiastical Extremes
There are two ecclesiastical extremes that I have seen since becoming a believer. First, there is the extreme of focusing so much on the “universal church,” and then there are Christians who focus almost an un-healthy amount on the local church. Before you call me a heretic, let me explain my rational.
Please understand that my sentiments and experiences are just that–my own. I can’t possibly paint all of Christendom into such nice categories with such generalizations. These are just observations, not a complete analysis.
Para-Church Ministries and the Universal Church
When I was in Crusade I was constantly bombarded with the fact that our ministry was Crusade. Even though they paid lip service to being involved in a church, because they were “not a church” it wasn’t a true admonition. In fact, when someone from the movement left to be more involved in their church, it was actually looked down upon. There was just something inherent in the para-church ministry that harbored this ideology. I know that it is not indicative of all para-church ministries, but it was what I saw while I was a leader in Crusade.
The Local Church and Para-Church Skepticism
I believe there is another extreme that Christians can go to. In the churches I’m around (reformed), they tend to be skeptical if not outright intolerant of the para-church movement. The local church is exalted to such a high level that the para-church movement becomes un-biblical and without scriptural foundation. The problem isn’t that they’re necessarily wrong, but the problem is that the local church isn’t do the job that they should. If they were reaching out to college students, mobilizing missionaries, and translating the bible into other languages then there would be no need for the para-church; but the need is great, and I believe it is necessary if we are to finish the great commission.
The Proper Response
I have learned so much about life in the local church that Crusade never taught me nor did it seem they even strive to teach me. Crusade did not have seasoned men leading the flock, but it was instead staffed by mostly recent college graduates. Crusade also did not practice the ordinances, preach the word expositionally, and other things I’ve come to appreciate inside my local church.
However, the local church is not fulfilling its duty. If we had more churches standing up to actively do the things mentioned about then we wouldn’t need a “para” or “additional” church. We must instead realize that both are necessary, and we should strive to work harmoniously together for the sake of Christ’s name being made great among the nations and in our midst.
Feedback
- Have any of my readers had experiences of their own one way or another on this issue?
- Have you been involved in a para-church ministry that strongly encouraged life in the local church?
- Have you been in a local church that worked harmoniously with para-church organizations?
I agree with you wholeheartedly.
1. I agree with your sentiments on Crusade. While Crusade has more good points than bad. I would say that this area is very weak. Real Life is definitely no replacement for church and crusade as a whole should not replace the church body.
2. I haven’t, but I have only been at Wright State.
3. I have not, in fact, i am in a little bit of a struggle because I am having a hard time with my church because they will not support me going on project.
Speaking from personal experience:
It seems impossible to seperate the local church from para-church movements completely but yet a distinction certainly exists. From my experience, it seems that people who are involved in a para-church movement are usually involved in a local church but that people who are primarily involved in a local church are not as heavily involved in any given para-church organization/movement, etc… Essentially, preference seems to be given to the local church over the para-church as it certainly should (i.e. para-churches encourage involvement in the local church but local churches rarely encourage activity in a para-church).
Each serves a distinct purpose with a difference in the priority given to one over the other. Para-churches (say CCC) serve a great purpose in ministry, fellowship and regular worship but often limits those who are involved in many ways:
1. Participants are usually isolated from elders and overall more spiritually mature believers.
2. Participants can struggle to find their place in the greater church body after four years of involvement.
3. Participants can develop stagnation from lack of doctrinal teachings, participation in the sacrements, and involvement with a larger body of believers.
That being said, I encourage involvement in a para-church (i.e., again, CCC) as long as a person can maintain involvement with their local church. In my opinion the preference must be given to the local church over para-church involvement.
I relate the situation to involvement in a house church as part of a greater church body. While the house church movement has done wonderous things for the greater body, it is my opinion that they are best suited when they remain affiliated with the central church body. This ensures accountability of teachings and practices and encourages the positives of involvement in both a local and para-church while minimizing the drawbacks of being involved in either body that is completely seperated from the other. Apex serves as a microchasm example of how this can be done successfully.
It would be interesting to hear from para-church organizations who are directly affiliated with a local church and/or denomination such as Chi Alpha and to a lesser extent Crosswalk. Our experiences might be limited in that our involvement with CCC as a para-church organization was not directly tied to a local church and/or denomination (if you exclude Apex, that is).
@Perry: I appreciate your well thought-out response. I would disagree, however, that a “house church” should have a “mother church” as Apex does. I am a firm believer in the independence of the local congregation against an ecclesiastical hierarchy. While congregations should seek accountability from other local churches they do not fall under one another.
could someone explain what exactly a house church is. I have a general idea, but have never heard an in depth explanation. From what I hear, it is just a small group meetng, but I am sure it is more in depth than that.
Chris,
I might have mis-spoken. I in no way was trying to argue FOR an ecclesiastical hierarchy. My discussion of house churches was in greater reference to supplemental house church in contrast with independent house churches. Many local congregations encourage additional involvement with a house church as if to almost supplement the experience with the full local congregation. In such a case I was meaning to argue that those bodys are best suited to maintain contact with the larger church body for issues of accountability and continued involvement in the church sacraments. The issue of independent house churches is seperate as such churches usually have an overseer and regularly participate in the sacraments.
Interesting comments all. The most notable experience I can recall is that of Crusade’s emphasis on discipleship and evangelism. These two things are what Crusade prides itself on as being its ‘distinctives’. It seems that whenever I had these two areas presented to me by a staff member, they would draw attention to the fact that most churches didn’t do much in either area.
Granted, that is probably true. (How many churches do you know that do hardcore discipleship or evangelism?) It always had an unhealthy sort of pridefulness hidden in it. If your local church isn’t doing something that you feel strongly that it should be, is the proper response to start (or in this case join) a separate para-church organization which fills in the gaps?
Local churches are bigger and more complicated settings, which is why I think that evangelism and discipleship can get buried in the mix. Out of curiosity, what do Crosswalk and Chi Alpha say about themselves I wonder? Are they para-church? I certainly think they start with a better model.