First it was Justin Taylor informing the world (or at least the readers of his blog) that Desiring God Ministries needed money. The post from last June was entitled, “Helping DG,†and at first I thought, even hoped, that Justin was very kind to offer me help. Turned out that the DG in question was not the underemployed one living in downtown Philadelphia but the Minneapolis-based entity who last summer was facing significant budget cuts.
Then it was a year-end post about the Gospel Coalition itself needing funds.
And now I receive an email from Tim Keller himself, requesting support for Redeemer City to City. Although I had heard of Redeemer-like churches, and knew of Keller’s involvement in both GC and the Presbyterian Church of America, I had not known about his/Redeemer’s “movement†of global churches, designed to renew global cities. In addition to being a pastor in the PCA and a best-selling author, Keller is president of RCTC. A year end email indicated the following need:
Dear Redeemer City to City supporter,
Over twenty years ago I received a calling to move my family to New York City and plant a church. God blessed our church beyond all of our expectations, and has blessed New York City through many other ministries as well.
Today, we are standing at the cusp of another humbling opportunity – to use our twenty years of experience ministering and planting churches in New York City to serve a groundswell of church planters and urban Christians in the great cities of the world. In today’s globalized world, cities will exercise more power than nations in the previous age (see Foreign Policy’s recent cover story).
To date we have helped to plant 190 churches in 35 global cities, many of which will plant other churches. In 2010 alone, we saw 34 new churches started in Tokyo, Barcelona, Johannesburg, São Paulo, Kuala Lumpur and 15 other cities, and published resources to help churches like these do discipleship, mercy & justice and evangelism.
We still have a budget gap of $200,000 for 2010. Please consider making a one-time or recurring gift to support these gospel movements in the great cities of the world.
Grace & peace,Tim Keller
President, Redeemer City to City
Not only am I amazed that Keller has the time to be involved with the PCA, GC, and RCTC – the OPC is a sufficient ministry outlet for my time and offerings – but I do wonder about the built-in redundancy of these efforts. Would GC have an easier time raising money and hiring staff if they could simply incorporate Desiring God and Redeemer City to City in its structure and activities? That seems logical enough. But then why would Keller and John Piper join GC but keep their own networks of churches and supporters?
I know the non-profit world has much overlap between persons and institutions, but that overlap has limits. For instance, the chairman of the board of the Philadelphia Museum of Art would likely have to cut back his commitment to the Pennsylvania Academy of Fine Art if, for instance, he was serving on PAFA’s board when appointed to chair Philadelphia’s museum. So why would Keller or Piper, reconsider their own involvement with RCTC and DG respectively if they joined a coalition for the gospel? Is GC simply window dressing, you know, drive for show, put for dough?
And this says nothing of Redeemer NYC’s membership in the PCA. What does membership in RCTC mean, compared to the communion of the PCA? Are all ministers simply free-lance entrepreneurs of religious goods with no restraints from obligations to sets of churches or ministries? Maybe, but that’s not the way Coke and Pepsi operate; even the world of for-profits recognizes some form of brand loyalty such that you can’t – at least the last time I was there – purchase Pepsi products at McDonald’s.
This may seem an overly narrow reading of religious identity or Christian fellowship, as if belonging to GC or DG or RCTC might place limits on someone’s additional fellowship outlets. But it is the case that if you join the OPC, you have to renounce other memberships, such as the Southern Baptist Convention, or the Free Masons (no intention of drawing equivalency there). The OPC and the SBC understand the nature and work of the church differently, and also disagree about theological matters. This does not mean that Southern Baptists are barred from the Lord’s Supper at an OPC congregation. But it does mean that SBC pastors will not preach in OPC pulpits, and it also means that someone coming from the SBC into the OPC will need to make another profession of faith and be examined by the session.
But in the case of GC, DG, and RCTC, no such boundaries exist, at least for the leaders who attract readers, donors, and fans. Apparently, someone can be part of DG, GC, and RCTC – though since Keller’s movement has a Gospel DNA, one may wonder if GC’s commitment to the gospel is less genetically precise. Plus, another distinction between RCTC and GC is that many of the churches that belong to GC are not sufficiently urban or global to qualify for RCTC. In which case, a congregation’s geography matters more than its commitment to proclaim the gospel. I had heard of race, class and gender. But now we need to add city?
Well, actually GC calls is membership a “city.†The website says:
Our online community of over 8,000 people from 65 different countries is called The City. You will find groups based on geographical location as well as special interests in order to help you connect with like-minded, gospel-centered people.
Apparently this “city†is not sufficiently urban or global to be part of RCTC. New York City does have high standards, after all, though Scriptural norms for belonging and fellowship might embrace suburbanites and agrarians. Heck, it would also include the homeless since we are all pilgrims.
Anyway, task of mapping the boundaries and ties among these various evangelical and somewhat Calvinistic enterprises is almost as complex as the Southern Baptist Convention’s hierarchy is Baroque. If belong to GC is to be part of “the city,†then becoming part of RCTC is, I guess, to join the ueber-urban inner city circle of GC. Yet, when you look at GC’s handy church directory, you see that of the five churches listed at the RCTC list of Philadelphia CTC churches, only liberti church east and Grace Church of Philadelphia also belong to GC. (Apparently, neither organization has rules about spelling and capitalization.) But a comparison of these cites also shows that RCTC has more members in Philadelphia than GC (five to four). If both groups opened up to each others membership, then RCTC and GC would have seven congregations in Philadelphia; as it stands they limp along with reduced numbers.
And to keep the comparison going, RCTC has no churches in Lake Wobegone country where John Piper ministers. But Piper’s congregation is part of GC, and Trinity City Church in St. Paul is the other urban member from the Twin Cities. (With a name like that, you would think Trinity City Church would be a shoe in for joining RCTC.)
And what of the Baptist General Convention and the PCA? Are these denominations and associations of congregations simply chopped liver? I can understand that an independent congregation that wants to feel connected may look to GC as a form of fellowship beyond the local congregation. To alleviate their predicament, they could actually consider becoming part of a Reformed denomination or federation, but Reformed communions are a little more rigorous about baptism than GC, DG, or RCTC. Still, if you already belong to the PCA or the General Baptist Convention, why would you need to join GC or RCTC or DG? And if GC, RCTC, and DG did not exist, would the ministries of denominations like the GBC and the PCA be healthier and less in need of year-end contributions themselves? I mean, do the GBC and PCA not promote the gospel, desire God, or exclude urban congregations?
But over against the disadvantages of denominations, GC, DG, and RCTC allow for forms of membership, loyalty, and fellowship that come with few restrictions and plenty of opportunities for giving financially. One of the virtues of the U.S. currency, even in this difficult economy, is that it works in all parachurch agencies and Christian movements. What is more, the U.S. Christians who own those dollars don’t need to belong to any ministry, movement, or coalition in order to give. All these persons need to do is neglect giving any thought to what sort of obligation their own church membership and denominational ties places upon them.
Old Life 
Point taken, however it needs to be understood that most evangelical-Calvinistic churches are non-denominational. Why Tim Keller would actually form his own network does seem like a slap in the face to his Presbytery and General Assembly. I understand that on the mission field, networks have their place, but with that kind of attitude, why doesn’t Tim Keller adapt the Salvoy declaration for his congregation (in all its campuses) join the Conservative Congregational Christian Conference (CCCC)? It seems he doesn’t care about even loose Presbyterian polity.
LikeLike
DG, While I do agree with the potential negative competition of taking away from denominational members’ tithing, these parachurch non-profit networks don’t concern me to the same degree that it does you.
On the contrary, I think these types of parachurch organizations that are less particular about non-essential doctrinal differences are vital to evangelism and fulfilling the great commission.
I think it is better for the church and our denominations if outreach activity is disconnected from the proper church organism in order to engage non-Christians and the unchurched, This is a much better situation than compromising the proper church gathering to accommodate unbelievers.
I think orgs like DG, GC, and RCTC help evangelism by creating environments where denominational particulars are left at the door, so we might hold forth the core elements of faith and remove barrers and stumbling blocks from the lost.
Problem is too many ppl will probably take from the money they ought to tithe to the local church in order to support groups like these.
LikeLike
Jay,
The problem is that the Great Commission was entrusted to the church to be administered by her officers, not to the parachurch. The other issue is simply pragmatic, are more disciples being made because of these organizations, or are they mutual appreciation societies? In terms of long term fruitfulness and lasting faith as opposed to crisis “conversions”, the ministry of the local church is still more effective.
LikeLike
Jed, the great commission ≠evangelism.
LikeLike
Paul,
I’ve got to say. I’m impressed with the “does not equal” sign, where did you find it? And specifically yes, you are correct it doesn’t equal evangelism, but it includes evangelism and much more and you know this. In principle, I don’t have much of an issue with where someone comes to faith in Christ, as God can and does use some of the strangest ways. But the problem with the parachurch is that it all too often co-opts a great deal of the responsibilities of the institutional church in evangelism and other churchly duties. They tend to function as replacement churches in many instances, such as certain campus ministries do for many college students. Maybe there are a few out there that bolster the ministry of the local church, but by in large they assume the responsibilities of the church (e.g. evangelism and discipleship) without being one.
I am not even out against all parachurch org’s but when they impinge on the ministry of the local church and only contribute to a generally churchless brand of Christianity that is so prevalent in our culture, then yes, I have a problem with them.
Jay was making the point that the parachurch has the responsibility of fulfilling the GC. He seems to lend some weight to the setting aside of doctrinal differences to do so. I personally disagree, churches can maintain doctrinal distinctive and carry out the GC since this is in fact what Christ requires of the church. Were you driving at something else because I am not clear what point you were making here?
LikeLike
The centrality of the visible church has been greatly denuded by evangelical para church organisations – this fact needs to be honestly recognised, and this discussion is a sharp and cold breath of fresh air to the debate of such neo – churches and how they act as an initially subtle substitute for the church. One thing though should be kept always in mind: that this is no negative, sniping debate for it is about the fundamental health of Christ’s church, and how it is being weakened by groupings acting supposedly on behalf of the church which often seem to take on church like authority which is not theirs to assume. Let me give one example. How many today take their cues and frameworks for theology from para church set ups? My answer would be, listening to the English pastors I have known, very much from para church leaders who have celebrity like following, and movements like T4G.
I freely admit that the motives of GC, DG, ACE and even T4G may well be very sincere, but the folks who manage these behemoths should consider that they usually end up taking on churchly and certainly influential status as men of a theological persuasion contribute their ideas and praxis orientation drives the ministry of these organisations. Maybe, to use a Lancashire proverb, I am “as thick (stupid) as two short planks”, but I find it hard to take the professions of unity in these para church groupings when their is such a diversity of church government, not to mention theology. For example, how does ACE or more openly T4G foster Biblical or in any sense confessional unity by having Presbyterian leaders working with, and thereby advocating, non confessional and unashamedly pentecostal and charismatic groups like Sovereign Grace Ministries?
Old Life avoids the trap of such organisations as it always advocates the Old Side and creedal Presbyterian theology, and this simple but unflinching aim is it’s great strength. Frankly, evangelicals have become too sophisticated and have spawned a multiplicity of organisations which need feeding (money) and essential issues of the Gospel, like church government, are strangely down graded in the desire for evangelism.
LikeLike
Jay, is not evangelism a form of preaching? And should not preaching be under the oversight of those officers whom Christ has called to oversee the work of the church?
Even if you don’t buy this, at some point you are going to have to have some oversight, otherwise Benny Hinn becomes as good as Phil Ryken. ACE would disapprove of Benny Hinn, I suppose. But ACE is not the church. It is though an organization with some oversight. So why should the parachurch have the power of oversight but not the church?
LikeLike
Paul, then please send your beginning of year contributions for our ministry to Old Life, P.O. 7, Paradise, PA 17077 (get it? seven is the perfect number).
Not meaning to trivialize your point. I agree with you even if such agreement looks self-reverential.
LikeLike
Jed said, “Jay was making the point that the parachurch has the responsibility of fulfilling the GC.”
Not at all Jed. I agree more with Paul, that the Great Commission does not equal evangelism. It contains evangelism, but they are not the same. In addition, I absolutely did not state that the parachurch has “The Responsibility” of …. That is a huge distortion. I simply stated that I do not object to churches supporting parachurch activities (whether it be DG or prison ministry or student ministry or missions organizations) because in most of the situations, the opportunity to evangelize is enhanced above and beyond what the “church proper” can do.
Now, GC may not actually fit these models well, because as Jed states its purpose and focus is different from the types of parachurch ministries that we support as a church and denomination. But I wouldn’t group them with DG or RCTC then.
Jay
LikeLike
DG Hart, “Jay, is not evangelism a form of preaching? And should not preaching be under the oversight of those officers whom Christ has called to oversee the work of the church?”
If that were the case, then why bother to teach EE to the laity? Or even encourage them to share Christ with their neighbors, co-workers, family members –all outside of the oversight of the church? This logic makes no sense to me, and seems to seriously conflict with 2K theology (of which I’m a fan).
You also asked about oversight: “So why should the parachurch have the power of oversight but not the church?” Yes, but oversight of what is the first question. Again, I think the 2K theology handles this nicely. Of course, the church has oversight of all ecclesiastical matters. affecting the the visible church. That should never be messed with. And is exactly why parachurches are ideal when they facilitate outreach by churches and members of churches in secular settings where the church does not have dominion.
The key for me though, is that churches ought to choose which paraministries to support, not autonomous individuals. For instance, our church supports RUF, MTW, World Harvest, Prision Fellowship, and several local crisis pregnancy centers. We support them monetarily, but we also participate in their outreach activities, by serving and evangelizing people who normally would not have entered the four walls of our church. But through parachurch interaction, they are introduced to Christ and do often find their way to Biblical churches.
I hope that makes a little more sense.
LikeLike
Jay,
You need to check what you have posted. I am not sure how I distorted your claim, these are your own words man:
On the contrary, I think these types of parachurch organizations that are less particular about non-essential doctrinal differences are vital to evangelism and fulfilling the great commission.
Your post construed the sense that the church was better left out of evangelism due to dividing doctrines that might impede evangelism and fulfilling the GC. I argue that evangelism and obeying the GC are the sole responsibility of the church. Can the church, and Reformed congregations do a better job? Absolutely, but the answer to better evangelism and fidelity to the GC is not the parachurch. Only with the rise of modern Evangelicalism has the parachurch emerged. Frankly the parachurch has not consistently given a biblical defense of its existence and why it can operate outside ecclesiastical authority.
Your arguments are pragmatic, based on the perception of effectiveness. However where’s the biblical justification of such an immense parachurch superstructure that exists alongside the church while being distinctly outside it?
LikeLike
Jay, sorry but I still see confusion. First you say evangelism should be done by everyone, including the laity. (I myself am not convinced that this is the calling of all Christians, nor am I a fan of Evangelism Explosion, if that is what EE stands for. The church calls ordained men to the office of evangelist for a reason.) But second, you say the church should support paraministries, “not autonomous individuals.” When lay people evangelize, aren’t they autonomous individuals?
You still seem to be arguing both sides, and failing to do justice to the institutional church.
LikeLike
Darryl, looks like a syntax error on my end. What I meant that to say is the churchs, not autonmous individuals, should be the ones to support paraministries. Does that make more sense? In other words, my time and money should only go to those paraministries that our church session/board of elders has chosen to support. That way it is a corporate effort and my role is still under the accountability of my elders.
(BTW- I am a huge fan of yours and a regular reader.)
Jed, you are reading an awful lot of meaning into my words that is not intended to be there. I was giving reasons why I thought that parachurch ministries are “vital to evangelism”. You have extrapolated my words to say that the parachurch “has the responsibility” of evangelism and that the church is better left out of evangelism, neither of which were stated by me. I’m sorry if you took it that way, but that was not my intent.
LikeLike
Again Jay,
You said this:
I think it is better for the church and our denominations if outreach activity is disconnected from the proper church organism in order to engage non-Christians and the unchurched, This is a much better situation than compromising the proper church gathering to accommodate unbelievers.
I am not sure how I could interpret this statement any other way than, “the parachurch “has the responsibility†of evangelism and that the church is better left out of evangelism…” Maybe you were overstating the case here and weren’t communicating what you really meant, and I am cool with that, but my critiques are reasonable given your initial statements. I can’t go off of intentions or what your thought processes are, I can only go off of what you have written. Is there a better way for me to construe these statements here, or am I really distorting your words here? Honestly, I am not out to misrepresent you here.
You also stated to DGH that your church supports RUF and MTW. I’m not sure these would be classified as “parachurch” ministries since they are ministries under the oversight of the PCA. In RUF’s case this campus ministry is an evangelistic ministry under the supervision and authority of a local congregation. Students involved with RUF are supposed to be involved with the supervising church as well. This is a far cry from other campus ministries such as Campus Crusade and InterVarsity. MTW is also in a similar position, with the objective of planting Reformed churches worldwide. Obviously these ministries have organizational apparatuses that are probably outside the competency of a small local congregation, however they are under the authority of the GA and they serve the church rather than compete with it. So I would distinguish denominational ministries that are outside the traditional ministries of the local church but are still under the authority of a denominational body from “parachurch” ministries that are totally outside the authority of the local church and in many cases in competition with the local church in terms of resources and spiritual oversight.
I suspect that one of the reasons why the parachurch gets a pass from so many is that these ministries are basically par for the course in our modern Christian experience. The parachurch hasn’t been adequately scrutinized or done a good job of justifying it’s own existence. The church has the ability to carry out all that Christ commands her with respect to her mission. He has gifted the body for the expansion of the gospel. My gut feeling is that many of these ministries can and should seek to be submitted to an ecclesiastical body, in the long run this actually safeguards the orthodoxy of these ministries. Those ministries that seek a “lowest common denominator” standard for essential Christian truth in order to reach souls for Christ often suffer the greatest erosion in terms of orthodoxy over time. You can see this drift in ministries like InterVarsity today, and if you look at many contemporary liberal ministries (or social programs and charities) you will find that they were once conservative adherents to some form of “mere Christianity”. I am close to many Christians who are involved in parachurch ministries, some hold high levels of leadership, and I don’t see foul or sinister motives. What I do see is the desire to see results often trumps sound ecclesiology. Frankly, I see this as a problem, and I would urge you to reconsider your endorsements of the parachurch based on what Scripture tells us about the Church and her mission.
LikeLike
Jed, if the GC includes baptizing (and it does), then you have a decent argument. The tough argument is to show that evangelism is only properly done by ordained officers of the church. That it is a “part” of the GC isn’t sufficient to show this, unless we want to start arguing that since a lego is part of a statue weighing 100 lbs, the lego itself is therefore 100 lbs too. Darryl’s argument is better: that evangelist is an office of the church, but even though the argument is better it’s very weak. Even an exegete of Murrary’s stature had to declare that, “It would appear, therefore, that here is a moot question on which we are compelled to be indecisive.†Undisputed offices (elder, deacon) have qualifications, recognitions, and information that ‘evangelist’ simply doesn’t have, and the Ephesians passage calls it a “gift.” While {office holders} ⊂ {gifted}, not all gifts are offices. So a passage that refers to something as a gift is insufficient to show that it is an office. Furthermore, prophet is mentioned (not an office) but deacon isn’t (a continuing office). Moreover, Timothy is told by Paul to do the work of an evangelist, he doesn’t tell him to enter the office of evangelist. On top of this, a very popular view is that the evangelist was an extraordinary temporary office, and this doesn’t operate today (which would remove it from the GC). On this view, then, telling your neighbor the “good news” isn’t to evangelize him, and no para church organization is engaged in “evangelism,” whatever else they may be doing. Other views include a much broader scope and responsibility of ‘evangelist,’ so again, merely telling people about Jesus and the good news of salvation only partakes of some of the job of the evangelist, and so it cannot be said that doing that (which is what most PC and “evangelicals” mean by the term) is somehow untoward, being contrary to Scripture. Granted, when they say they’re evangelizing they’d be wrong too, but that’s an insignificant conclusion, a pyrrhic victory. So Darryl’s better argument is likewise unpersuasive.
LikeLike
Paul,
Go back and read my comments to Jay, I wasn’t addressing evangelism, nor did I specify that evangelism was the sole responsibility of church officers. The context of the discussion was and is – who is responsible for carrying out the GC, which I do think falls under the exclusive jurisdiction of the ordained officers of the church. I was criticising his assertion (at least as I understood it) that the GC is better handled by the parachurch than the institutional church. I realize that the GC and evangelism are closely related but I don’t think I was blurring the distinction between the two and I don’t think that the GC itself was addressing evangelism per se, rather it was a summary of the function and mission of the church in the world.
I know I did say I argue that evangelism and obeying the GC are the sole responsibility of the church. (Response to Jay 1/2 – 3:14 PM). To clarify, evangelism should always take place under the authority of the church officers, even when they aren’t directly involved with all evangelistic activity
I don’t really have an issue with the points you are bringing up. Heck, in the interests of full disclosure I am not convinced that Scripture demands that “evangelist” be solely a formal office. So with respect to DGH’s position here, I probably differ somewhat from his position. As you argued, I also happen think that there are those with the gift of evangelism that aren’t formal officers of the church. But, there are also valid formal commissions for evangelism whether that be in a broader missional effort to plant churches, or to see a local congregation grow through the spreading of the gospel. However, I do think that that evangelism should always take place under the authority and with the blessing of the church and her officers. A formal example of a commission would be the RUF ministry in the PCA; I believe that this fits within what I think are biblical parameters for the function of the gift. The RUF staffer is under the jurisdiction of the local session and seeks to integrate students involved in RUF into the local church. I am sure there are also laypersons who may very well possess a gift in evangelism that is expressed in an almost natural knack to unobtrusively share their faith with friends and acquaintances. These more informal expressions of evangelism (which is a somewhat sticky term which you rightly point out) are still carried out by a member in good standing who is likely to bring those interested to church where they can hear the gospel preached as well.
This is a far cry from ministries Campus Crusade, Focus on the Family, and Young Life, etc. that operate outside ecclesiastical authority. The point of the argument is that fulfilling the GC, pursuant to Matt. 28:18-20 is to be carried out by the officers of the church because these are men called by God and ordained especially for that task. So while I appreciate the points you are making here about evangelism, I am not interested in arguing against something that I basically agree with. I mean there is no way you could have been trolling for an argument, right? I am curious though, since you have peeked into this argument what your stance is with respect to the parachurch and carrying out the GC. In my opinion this is a bigger far more problematic issue than who conducts evangelism or witnessing within a local church.
LikeLike
Jed,
I wasn’t addressing your comment to Jay. Anyone reading the thread can clearly see the topic of ‘evangelism’ was involved as was whether it was appropriate for non-ordained officers to “evangelize.” I commented on concepts brought up.
Most of your other comments depend on just what you mean by evangelism, not to mention other terms (e.g., does the “blessing” of the church need to be explicit or informal, is always really always, i.e., no exceptions whatsoever? seems easy to come up with some, etc).
Oh, and then I read down and see, “I mean there is no way you could have been trolling for an argument, right?” Sigh.
I’ll bow out with answering your final question (asked after the insult): I don’t believe PC organizations can or should carry out the GC. I don’t have problems with PC organizations per se.
have fun
LikeLike
Paul,
No insult intended man, just a friendly jab, which I was sure you could handle given our history. Sometimes sarcasm doesn’t translate well with this medium. Anyhow, yes, I do believe that evangelism can be a more fluid undertaking at times, but I still think it needs to take place in a way that the church is made aware of it. This is simply because the message of the church must be consistent. So if someone is engaging in evangelistic activities by sharing their faith with a friend or colleague a pastor should be informed about the gist of the conversation, and possible plans could be made where the gospel could be heard in a more formal manner. So I don’t think the parameters of evangelistic activities are irrevocably graven in stone, but they aren’t supposed to be a free-for-all either.
With respect to PC’s generally we do agree regarding its role with respect to its responsibilities concerning the GC. That said, I am probably more inclined to suspicion regarding PC’s. I think a good grid for PC’s is to ask a few of key questions: are their overall objectives and operations usurping churchly roles; should their operations be under the authority of the church either to a local congregation, or a denomination; and lastly does their operation ultimately serve the church or run in competition with, or detract from it? My guess is that a whole host of PC’s would either realign under church authority or cease to exist. The existence of the PC has in some respects allowed the church to be lax in its mission because PC’s have assumed these responsibilities.
LikeLike
I think it ironic that The White Horse Inn and Ligonier somehow escape scrutiny here. I think you hurt your cause with posts like this and the previous one about JT. The YRR folks tend to shy away from this type of bickering. If you have a desire to introduce them to the “old life”, you’re certainly not helping yourself with these posts.
LikeLike
DJ,
I don’t spend much time over at Ligoner, so I won’t comment on that org. However, in defense of WHI/MR, they are basically a publishing organization and a radio program, and they make no claims to be a ministry. Certainly they deserve scrutiny, but I honestly think Christian media outlets get a pass (assuming the content is good) because the church isn’t a media enterprise. If you ding Christian media outlets for being detrimental parachurch org’s then you might as well stop reading Christian books altogether, and quit listening to audio content. I am generally critical of many parachurch org’s but I think there are some out there that provide a beneficial service that is outside of the church’s task to supply.
LikeLike
Jed,
I retract the comment about parachurches being vital to the great commission, but stand by the role of “Some” paraministries being vital to the role evangelism.
But again, you mistcontrue my words in the statement you quoted (January 2, 2011 at 8:47 pmz). I understand that I am not a perfect communicator, but please at least try not to make things I’ve stated mean something that I did not say.
When I say that outreach activities ought to be disconnected with the church worship service, that does not equate to saying we are better off if the church is not involved in evangelism. I didn’t think I’d have to explain that, but here goes. The worship service is an assembly of the saints for the purpose of worshipping our one and only triune God. Unbelievers are invited to attend, but the service ought not be compromised solely for, or even primarily for, the purpose of “reaching the lost.” That is an error and I’m simply stating that I prefer outreach activities that take place outside of the church’s four walls — and that are not co-mingled with worship. John Piper, “Missions exist because worship does not.”
I hope this helps to clarify. Thank you for allowing me to state my position here. Caio, and blessings in Christ to all. Jay
LikeLike
Jed – You’re answer doesn’t satisfy me. I get what your saying about media outlets and all, but churches can print and distribute things as well. Isn’t that a huge part of what Desiring God does? And who gets to decide what is “good content”. Certainly a paedobaptist would think a book about believer’s baptism would be considered “bad”. It’s not as black and white to me.
WHI/MR/Ligonier (which explicitly calls itself a ministry)/9marks have all gotten passes in the past two posts. Will consistency win out and will we see posts about them too? I doubt it (although 9marks would probably be the first to go down given they are Baptist, like myself). And to the best of my knowledge there have been associations that Dr. Hart has had with all of them. That is what leaves a bad taste in my mouth. Just seems like Dr. Hart is picking on certain folks for some reason or another? In any event, it certainly isn’t attractive in my opinion.
LikeLike
DJ,
White Horse Inn (Modern Reformation) and Ligonier, it could be argued, are not included in the scope of the appropiate criticism of para church behemoths perhaps because they are working hopefully from a Reformed and Presbyterian basis; that’s my initial thoughts on your comment about them.
You say “The YRR folks tend to shy away from this type of bickering”. What exactly is the bickering you have in mind? If an illustration may help you to see these posts are not about sniping or bickering, think of how the best journalism is investigative: revealing, provocative, uncovering facts and making people think about even large scale issues in a way which is incisive and rooted in integrity. The journalist though may write in a way which is not ‘pretty’ or to foster a warm glow in the reader; the best writers have an edge in their words and a nose for facts which can often go against the grain. Think of how Old Life as a Reformed form of such journalism – it is not about bickering or being negative. It is, to use a journalist’s phrase, about ‘sniffing out the truth’, or at least provoking good, intelligent, pithy debate and comment.
A few peppery words here and there, as long as they are not rooted in blind prejudice or grudge, actually make Old Life the unique joy it is to read. It would be good if “The YRR folks” would contribute a few words (I mean in a concise way) to these posts. I would love to ask them about their semi or Neo Reformed views which so often run counter to the historical Reformation examples.
Finally, the points and subsequent comments about para church workings and even more so how they square with the priority of the church in this post have been excellent – ‘gritty’ and stimulating if they are read in their entirety. What more could you want?
Sincere grace and peace to you, DJ, in the Lord Jesus Christ.
LikeLike
@ Paul,
*White Horse Inn (Modern Reformation) and Ligonier, it could be argued, are not included in the scope of the appropiate criticism of para church behemoths perhaps because they are working hopefully from a Reformed and Presbyterian basis; that’s my initial thoughts on your comment about them.*
That is exactly what rubs me the wrong way about this. It seems to smack of prejudice. I guess that’s what I mean when I say “The YRR folks tend to shy away from this type of bickeringâ€. Maybe bickering isn’t the best word, and prejudice is? I dunno. All I know is that I love this blog, but these two posts seem to pick favorites (in exclusion from criticism) within what is in many respects the same team (need we spell out all the connections all these ministries/organizations/men have??), while giving down the road to the others. Just doesn’t seem very even-handed to me, and I would dare say it doesn’t set well with many folks, of whom might have wrestled with these issues some if not turned off by the whole thing.
BTW, You would certainly peg me as a “YRR” type, although I certainly don’t claimed to be Reformed, as I have been persuaded by Scott Clark, Riddlebarger, etc that I am not “Reformed” in the historical sense of the term. But I do say I am “essentially” reformed in many doctrines. I think that’s a fair distinction.
LikeLike
Jay,
Like I said earlier, my criticism was based upon what I understood the plain meaning of what your response indicated. I wasn’t putting words in your mouth, I simply disagreed with what you wrote. The fact that your retracted and clarified your statements (which I appreciate btw) demonstrated that you may not have clearly communicated what you intended here. You can impugn my motives if you’d like but frankly I have no axe to grind with you. Unless I missed something, which might very well be the case this is the first time you clarified that “outreach” shouldn’t be part of the worship service. I certainly didn’t glean that from your initial comments.
That said, could you clarify what you mean by “outreach”? I don’t think you mean that the church should refrain from preaching the gospel which is instrumental in creating and strengthening faith (cf. Belgic Confession Art. 29, Romans 10:17). Are you thinking of basic evangelistic sermons, altar calls, etc as “outreach”, or something else? Honestly, if your local Reformed congregation “preaches the pure gospel”, why wouldn’t you invite an unbeliever to hear it proclaimed? There might involve quite a bit of educating for the unbeliever to understand what is happening in the worship service, and to understand the language of Scripture and the distinct vocabulary of the community of faith.
For example, lets say you take one unbeliever to a Billy Graham Crusade and the other to a solid Reformed church, is one more or less likely than the other to possibly convert and continue on in lifelong discipleship. Sure the Billy Graham convert may have made a crisis decision to come to faith, but the statistics aren’t exactly in favor of this convert continuing on in a life of faith. The unbeliever who hears the gospel preached week in and week out as the Word is faithfully preached might not convert immediately, in fact it could take some substantial time for him to make a credible profession, but I would think he has a better shot at continuing on in the faith than someone who converts outside of the ministry of the church.
LikeLike
So, what parachurch organizations are “OK”? GC, DG, RCTC – they are definitely out here at OldLife. I would dare say that around here, Acts29, Sov Grace Min (although this is basically a denomination), 9marks would be out too. So, *does* that leave MR/WHI/Ligonier as legit parachurch organizations? Does Dr. Hart think they are? If so, whats the criteria to make that judgment? They are all the same in my book.
Now to my own blind tendencies – I will quickly give Campus Crusade for Christ, or BGC “down the road” while I won’t do the same for the more Calvinistic ones. Why is that? My initial answer would be that its because of the arminian teaching, and that they aren’t too strong on the local church, but I don’t think that’s a good answer at all. I promise to do some thinking on it.
LikeLike
Jed, I appreciate the engagement, frustrating, I’ll admit, but appreciated nonetheless.
Now, go look back, I did clearly state that unbelievers should be invited to attend the church service. And i did say that I believe that churches should not let outreach activities compromise the church service.
An outreach activity, since you asked for a definition, according to American Heritage Dictionary, is: “A systematic attempt to provide services beyond conventional limits, as to particular segments of a community.”
Some examples in our church: We go into the men’s and women’s prisons to do Bible studies every week with Gideons. We participate by serving meals to homeless vets at a local homeless shelter. We volunteer to help at the local crisis pregnancy ministry by answering their hotline. We meet hundreds of people who we pray for and share the Gospel message with, but only a small percentage ever come to church. Obviously, if we could get them all there, that would be ideal.
The problem that I’m concerned with exemplified by a church I used to attend that made the move from traditional reformed to a contemporary, purpose-driven model. The entire worship service was redefined as an outreach event. Rather than focusing on the worship of God, the music (rock and roll), the “message” (read: Christless Christianity), and the liturgy changed to accomodate their new “target audience” – unbelievers. While I offer this as a particular anecdote, I assure you it is happening all over the country.
With that I guess I will also bow out and let this thread go as it may.. Grace and Peace..
Jay
LikeLike
DJ, the cause here is the visible church. If White Horse Inn and Ligonier need to think about this, fine. But I haven’t seen year end pitches for donations from them — maybe I haven’t looked hard enough. If it’s any consolation, I did not mention ACE.
LikeLike
Ligonier has definitely been beating the end of the year drum. Haven’t heard anything from WHI/MR, although they certainly ask for support on most broadcasts I listen to.
LikeLike
DGH, both Ligonier and WHI do not only year-end pitches, but I get stuff from WHI *all the time*.
LikeLike
My problem is not with DG, GC, WHI, Ligonier, or RCTC (well, maybe RCTC!) per
se, but with what often results from them: a de-emphasis on the centrality of
the local church. Certainly, many of these parachurch organizations do not
intend for this (or so I hope!). But it is usually the case! Moreover, these
organizations generally omit clear denominational identity. These orgs’
marginalize denominational boundaries as mere optional strands of evangelical
expression. Personally, my PCA congregation has enough to worry about (although
it appears few are worrying!). While I am thankful that these orgs, for the most
part, remain observably reformed, reducing the importance of denominational
identity will soon accompany the loss of the substance of what our reformed
churches emphasize, namely, preaching the Word, sacraments, and discipline
(probably the first to go!).
Additionally, rarely do these orgs have clear teaching on tithing to the local
church as it relates to stewardship, holiness, generous corporate expressions of
our faithfulness to God for the continued work of gospel proclamation,
sacramental reception, and disciplinary correction. They, maybe unintentionally,
make giving seem equally effective despite where it is being sent. Congregants
tithe little as it is, let alone, fail to develop ecclesiologies which are
corporate in character. These orgs often appeal (and promote) to our individual
and personal benefit of whatever resource they provide. More often than not,
these orgs fail to foster committed loyalty for our church, but rather promote
“the gospel” (divorced from the context of a local church).
I am not trying to harp on these orgs’ leaders. But our lives (mine included)
so quickly becomes fragmentary, subjective, and selfish. The church is the
institutional means by which God re-orients our whole being through the means of
grace so that we come to maturity and unity of the faith, attaining to all the
wealth that comes from the full assurance of understanding, resulting in a true
knowledge of God’s mystery, that is, Christ Himself, and being built together
into a dwelling of God in the Spirit, knitted together with the whole body, that
is, the church, culminating in her full submission to Christ, and Christ to God.
It frustrates me when parachurch orgs, in effect, contribute to a de-emphasis of
the centrality of the local church. Sometimes, I wonder what might happen if DG,
GC, and RCTC (insert other abbreviations!) went belly-up! How would evangelicals (for whatever that term means anymore!) respond? Personally, I would, with tithe-in-hand (or more accurately, in my wife’s Bible), continue to demonstrate my commitment to her goals. It is sad, to me, that the gospel is increasingly used as a marketable commodity. “Gospel” is now the hypernym for everything parachurch, confusing myself and many others.
LikeLike
Typing from an iPhone is difficult. I apologize for my spelling errors. For example, a sentence in my last paragraph should read as follows: I would, with tithe-in-hand (or more accurately, in my wife’s Bible), continue to demonstrate my commitment to my local church and her goals. Again, I apologize.
LikeLike
DJ,
You mention prejudice is a more accurate word than bickering to describe some of the ethos content on Old Life. I actually find it refreshing to have a clear cut approach in Old Life – straight down the line Old Side Presbyterian theology which avoids the mushy ‘Let’s get together’ feel of many para church and coalition set ups. This is not about being isolationist – it suggests to me that Old Life gives much food for rightful and positive thought regarding the creedal, confessional and liturgical Reformed Presbyterian truth and essential church structure which avoids the hybrids and compromises found in the YRR.
I would like to know what keeps yourself and others from being Reformed in this classical and proper sense? What is it in their ‘Reformed’ thinking makes YRR types produce stuff like the recent ‘Heidelberg Rap’ to echo the book by Kevin de Young on the Heidelberg Catechism? One of the YRR star preachers with a virtually cult following I heard in his preaching say a message on trials could be geared to his audience because of their baseball or football team’s poor performance. Apart from being a lame joke, I was sad that such a flippant remark was made in relation to Scripture.
Going back though to the para church matters, would it not be better if the money these set ups need was used in diaconal aid and primarily in the the training up of ministers called to preach the Gospel through whom the church is truly built up? And surely life is busy enough without folks having to be taken up so much with feeding para church organisations in terms of time, money, and attention? The church and it’s core calling as Ryan Ross has well described it is in my view greatly compromised because of the evangelical obsession with working together and especially working outside of the church (in para church set ups).
LikeLike
Paul,
I used the word prejudice in regards to what seemed to me, Dr. Hart singling out certain para-church organizations while not mentioning ones that he has been associated with himself. Not a good choice of words, again. Something that smacked of partiality is what I meant. Sorry.
What keeps me from becoming Reformed (I’ve actually tried) is a little thing called paedobaptism 🙂
Can’t comment on the Heidelberg Rap as my skin crawled the first moment I heard about it, and I have not listen to it, not plan on listening to it. I personally think it’s silly.
LikeLike
(Props to you, DJ, for understanding that to be Reformed is necessarily to be paedobaptist. Whatever else one may say about how the the New Calvinists misunderstand Reformed ecclesiology, Reformed sacramentology seems to also escape them, more or less. And Reformed soteriology doesn’t make up for any of it.)
LikeLike
Maybe a good criterion for parachurch organizations is whether their mission is to support the local church or do its work as prescribed by scripture. DGH took issue with TGC over this in a recent post. (And one where I commented that I had received an email from Ligonier requesting a special year end donation.) It seems like this can be a hard line to hold though as it is difficult to determine where parachurch organizations veer into the work of the church. I know Ligonier’s claim is to be a sort of seminary-lite for laity but couldn’t that be interpreted as the preaching the word? Also, Sproul is now ministering in a local body but for many years he earned his living from Ligonier. Yet people who are quick to critique parachurch organizations seldom mention him. Don’t get me wrong, I am deeply appreciative of Sproul’s ministry and would hate to cancel our Tabletalk subscription but it seems like Old Life is a little selective in its focus when it comes to parachurch ministries and has a particular ax to grind against Tim Keller.
LikeLike
Dr. Hart wrote: “But it does mean that SBC pastors will not preach in OPC pulpits”
Is that correct? Does the OPC have a rule preventing Southern Baptists from preaching in OPC pulpits? If so, I think there are some OPC sessions that don’t know that.
Joseph wrote: “I understand that on the mission field, networks have their place, but with that kind of attitude, why doesn’t Tim Keller adapt the Salvoy declaration for his congregation (in all its campuses) join the Conservative Congregational Christian Conference (CCCC)? It seems he doesn’t care about even loose Presbyterian polity.”
I’m still a 4C member for a few more days or weeks until my membership papers get transferred to an ex-URC church that’s in the process of joining the ARPs. Please don’t send Tim Keller toward the 4Cs. The Reformed men in the 4Cs have enought problems without dealing with him.
Rev. Keller is no more faithful to Congregational polity, at least according to the Savoy Declaration and Cambridge Platform, than he is to the polity taught by the Westminster Standards. If anything, Rev. Keller’s model of interchurch leadership is a personality-centered episcopacy, not Congregationalism or Presbyterianism.
Yes, the 4Cs would tolerate Rev. Keller and the top denominational leaders probably would welcome him with open arms, though the local 4C churches in metro New York City are considerably more conservative than the denomination as a whole and Keller would have some tough going in that local 4C association of churches. All that says is that the 4Cs have many of the same problems as the PCA — a key difference being that under Congregationalism, the pastor, elders and deacons of one local church aren’t conscience-bound to fight against stuff going on in some other church which is under the shepherding of its own elders. A certain level of diversity is tolerable within Congregationalism since the question is whether a church is so bad that it must be disfellowshipped and whether it has violated the denomination’s deliberately brief statement of faith and polity, rather than the question being whether a church has deviated from a long list of denominational rules in the Form of Government and Book of Church Order.
Don’t get me wrong: there have been churches that withdrew from the 4Cs following efforts to discipline them for heresy and/or abuse of their pastors. I think in all fairness, however, the parallel to the PCA is a fairly good one in the level of what both denominations tolerate — the difference being that the 4Cs are honest about the differences while the PCA has churches which are only loosely connected to even a New School concept of Presbyterianism.
LikeLike