I'm sure you've all heard by now of World Vision USA's announcement that they're discarding Jesus's teaching on the definition of marriage (Matt 19:4-6) and tossing out Paul's warning that those who engage in homosexual practices have no part in the kingdom of God (1 Cor 6:9-10) in favor of ... "unity". And I'm pretty sure that you've been able to find plenty of commentary from good people making valid observations on the extent of such a failure. I don't need to add my two cents worth. And the fact that they reversed their decision is good. But I still have something to consider.
The term that catches my eye is connected to World Vision's self-defense that "We're an operational arm of the global church, we're not a theological arm of the church." We have a popular term for this. It is "parachurch". World Vision (and so many others) is not a church organization. IT is a parachurch organization. Just what is that?
A parachurch organization is a Christian organization (I know of no other religious group that has these organizations) that engages in social welfare and evangelism without restricting itself to a specific religious denomination. The word comes with the prefix, "para", meaning "beside". We see it in "paradox", "paramedic", and even "parallel" and "paragraph". A "paralegal" is someone who is not a lawyer, but works alongside lawyers doing some of their work for them. And there you have the concept. A parachurch organization is not a part of a church, but aims at working alongside churches to assist them in doing some of their work. All well and good. Until you dig a little deeper.
Dig a little deeper and you find that there is no such thing as a "parachurch organization" in the New Testament. You were either in the church or out. You were either responsible to the leadership of the church or you were not. Churches, prescribed by God, were designed for a specific purpose (build saints -- Matt 28:19-20; Eph 4:11-14) with a specific structure (elders and deacons -- 1 Tim 3:1-13; Titus 1:5-9; 1 Peter 5:1-4) which keeps the "train on the tracks" so to speak. There are biblical controls, a biblical authority structure, and biblical checks and balances. "The work of the church" is commissioned and controlled by the biblical church. As the most obvious biblical example I can think of, look at Paul. Sent by God and the church, Paul took the Gospel to the Gentiles through Asia and Europe. We all think of him as a "super Christian", but Paul was never out from under the authority of the Apostles. That's the idea. That's the problem.
It would seem to me that the very nature of the "parachurch organization" -- "not restricted to any church" -- would stand in defiance of the biblical model. Independent of church oversight, they make ready targets for Satan to invade and overthrow. Independent of church authority, they are free to call themselves "Christian" while discarding Christianity, giving the world reasons to blaspheme God. Away from the watchful eye of elders and deacons called by God to their task and monitoring each other to do it, they easily fall into a more business-type model, lose sight of their original vision, and toss out the very structures, standards, and underpinnings that caused them to exist at all.
It is true that churches -- individual gatherings of believers -- are often too small to accomplish some very large tasks. Working together is a viable approach, where their efforts are still under the authority of biblical churches. Indeed, Jesus said, "By this all people will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another" (John 13:35), not "if you all share the same denomination." Churches working together for common tasks like evangelism and such is a good thing. I would suggest, however, that World Vision's initial defection from the truth of Scripture is good anecdotal evidence that the parachurch organization is a potentially dangerous and unbiblical thing for which Scripture has suitable substitutes. And can it be truly said that a parachurch organization is a parachurch organization if it discards the church and its teachings in order to "stand alongside" the church to accomplish her tasks? Perhaps we might want to revisit the idea of "parachurch".
3 comments:
Personally I have no problem with the concept of a para church organization. I think they fill some areas that the Church maybe can't effectively address. Particularly in humanitarian relief efforts where there may b e resistance to a Church group going in.
In general I even think that World Vision is an organization that is doing valuable work around the world.
Having said that, I think they've totally screwed this whole thing up. I understand the position they took and while I certainly don't support gay marriage, I understand what they were trying to do and don't necessarily fault them for trying. But, they blew this big time. First by making a bigger public issue of this than it deserved, then by reversing course immediately.
I don't think we can ignore the ammunition that has been given to the Dan's of the world. The fact that the "Mean conservative Christians willing to starve poor black children to spite gays" aren't too far from the truth and certainly don't help the cause. I have no problem with people who support or don't support organizations for what ever reason but this has certainly not been a bright shining moment for anyone.
I may be in the minority on this, and that's partly because of some things that are best not said in public.
You've made some good points and I don't necessarily disagree, just really disappointed in how this has all gone.
I agree (and said) that some tasks are too big for a church, but there are larger churches (like SBC or PCA or the like) that have 1) a larger group available and 2) maintain some control/authority. I don't know why an organization wishing to accomplish these good and large tasks can't do it under the auspices of church authority. You know, to help prevent just such an event as this.
I was disappointed that they did it and pleased that they reversed it. I have real (personal) problems with the modern Christian concept of "vote with your checkbook". I'm not at all clear that boycotts work, let alone that they're biblically mandatory. I mean, if we're not supposed to support things that are non-Christian, we'd have to get out of this world, wouldn't we?
I'm not happy with the firepower this added to both the skeptic and the theological liberal. I'm not happy with the way it played out -- dumping it on the public via Christianity Today. But I would suspect that I would be in the minority on this because most Christians have no question about the value of parachurch organizations.
I think we're on the same page again. I guess I would be more inclined to evaluate para church organizations individually rather than in general.
Post a Comment