The Highway Forums General Discussion Open Forum When Was the Last Time ...

Dear Joe,

A few of your many questions spark a response from me.

Re: people not wanting to talk about giving, I know that--as you imply--embarassment at not having given can silence many. But I also think a fair number who do give, wanting to comply with not letting their left hand know what their right hand is doing, might be leery of letting myriads of web-site viewers know the details!

Re: parachurch activity being ultimately accountable to local church authority, I firmly believe it should. Not that the operational details of the work must be subject to the scrutiny of the elders (for that would obviously hinder their calling, as in Acts 6), and not giving the church authority over non-Christian employers (for that reverts to a medieval confusion of kingdoms). Rather, Christians in any calling--including "parachurch"--should be subject to a local body to the degree that if an unresolvable dispute about "the work" arises between Christians, the offended parties could appeal to the church of the other party to consider the grievance in a disciplinary hearing. I feel that a lack of following this procedure has elevated many parachurches to a de facto "supra-church" status.

I remember Ken Jones making the case on the White Horse Inn that he is convinced that the ideal remedy for U.S. racially-driven slavery would have been for the elders of white southern churches to have 1) received the grievances of slaves and 2) disciplined owners for man-theft and attendant evils. He feels, and I agree, that had the matter been addressed initially within the church, much bloodshed and bitterness could have been avoided, attitudes may have changed in advance of legislation, and the growth of the liberal church may have been retarded.

Similary, when I have business dealings (parachurch or not) with Christians, I find one constraint on my behavior to be the real possiblity of official rebuke and discipline from my own church if I am guilty of unresolved offenses. In return, I feel that every dealing with a parachurch, if substantive grievances arise, should ideally be resolved by submission to the elders of either party, which would of course require the leaders of the parachurch to themselves be subject to elders.

Finally, re: missions boards in particular. One of our elder's sons has been involved in a (parachurch) group in New England which is trying to encourage churches to move away from the mission board model of missionary support in which many local churches/individuals contribute tiny pieces of support to multiple missionaries, toward a model in which each local church provides full support for a smaller number of missionaries. Some of the benefits: much more accountability, since far fewer people are involved; greater awareness and prayer support on the part of members of the local church, since they will get to know the missinaries much better; and far less stress on the missionaries at furlough time, instead of having to visit 20 churches where maybe only a few people have a clue about them, they can spend time with their families and local church only, getting truly restored and re-equipped for service.

Some may find my attitude of the sufficiency of the local church a little too Congregationalist--well, so be it--that's what I am (yes, doctinally reformed)! I am not anti-parachurch. I sit on a (small) parachurch board, and I remember that at our first meeting we insisted that all unresolved issues be handled by the church of the founder of the ministry.