I have been asked by more than one Reformed church to consider taking up a pastor position. I declined for multiple reasons, but let me say I'm so glad I'm not part of a Reformed denomination. Why?
1) I'd probably spend too much time talking about Reformed distinctives and less about the gospel and world evangelization.
2) I'd not have to actively and thoughtfully engage with real people with whom I disagree on secondary matters.
3) I would not have the sphere of influence for Reformed theology if I were on staff with a Reformed church.
4) I'd make secondary goals primary.
5) I'd probably start being even more judgmental and hyper-critical than I already am.... scary.
The idea of a parachurch ministry being a place where Christians can unify around the gospel, and secondary matters are attended to by individaul churches, is really great. All this to say, I'm not against Reformed denominations; thatd' be ridiculous. It's just good for me not to be in one.
Derek, I just can't help it.
ReplyDeleteMy five responses to your reasons why you're not a part of a reformed denomination. (these obviously correspond to your five reasons given in this post)
1. You could be an influence on a reformed church and a reformed denomination; that they would talk less about reformed distinctives and more about the gospel and world evangelism. (a little leaven amongst flour, given time, can leaven all the flour)
2. Again, you could be an agent of change, forcing your church (and your denomination?) to look outward and to focus on the main thing(s).
3. This presupposes the kind of work you'd be doing at a church, in a denomination. Also, influencing college students towards reformed theology is great, but it seems like short term influence instead of the kind of long term impact you could have in people's lives by shepherding them for years (4 years of influence vs. 10, 20, even 30 years of influence). This should be taken into consideration.
4. You could make secondary goals primary... but you don't have to. If you did, it would probably reveal more about your heart than it would the church or the denomination.
5. Again, I understand why you'd say this, but it would probably be revealing more about your heart than the hearts of those in the denomination or church. And anyway, maybe you're missing out on how God would work on this area of your heart.
I'm just think that if everyone thought the way you're thinking right now, then the body of Christ wouldn't really be the body of Christ. We'd be a bunch of toes over in that corner, some legs over there, a few hands up there, and so on. If you see issues that need to be dealt with in the body of Christ, why not take them on and seek to bear your brother's burdens? Galatians 6:1-2 seems to apply: "Brothers, if anyone is caught in any transgression, you who are spiritual should restore him in a spirit of gentleness. Keep watch on yourself, lest you too be tempted. Bear one another's burdens, and so fulfill the law of Christ."
And just because you see the temptation to be inward focused and judgmental, does that necessitate avoiding the circumstances? I'd see it as a call to change! It's a call to holiness, right? Galatians 6:2 did just say, "Keep watch on yourself, lest you too be tempted," but it doesn't say anything about not still bearing burdens? In fact, the warning is followed up with a second exhortation to bear their burden.
Just some thoughts, brother, off the top of my head.
Well, fist off, thanks for responding. I'm glad we can briefly interact on this, and perhaps jest with each other a bit as we do.
ReplyDeleteAnd before I go any further, I have to make sure to say that I do really and truly appriciate your ministry and the impact you're having for the glory of God. Thanks brother, for evangelizing and discipling. Thanks also for being a goof.
And now, to continue on...
Point taken on caveat #1, but not conceded. I suppose this could be discussed to the nth degree. Tick-for-tack. Instead of going down that trail, I would only point out that you originally stated that in a denominatino/local church you would not have the sphere of influence that you have now. Maybe you wouldn't, but then, maybe you would. Would you agree with that?
As for caveat #2, denominations can "separate body parts." Indeed, some (maybe most) do... but it doesn't have to play out that way in denominations (and lets be honest, I really am pushing to say that it doesn't have to be that way in local churches, because that's what matters). BUT, as I see it, the success of interdenominational ministries seems to rely on continued separation of body parts. Through interdenominational ministries, churches work together on what they agree on. Which, meaning to or not, only funnels churches away from those different than themselves.
Hey dude. First, I miss you. Why don't you move back to your home state?
ReplyDeleteOkay, so second - about point number 1 that you just made - what I actually said is that I wouldn't have the sphere of influence for Reformed theology. I wasn't talking about influence in general. So - true, with God, anything is possible; however, as a Reformed minister in an interdenominational organization, I have the unique opportunity to teach Reformed theology to people outside of Reformed denominations. People IN Reformed denominations are getting taught their theology. So people in seeker churches are getting the regulative principle whereas they otherwise would not. People from baptistic churches are getting covenant theology. People from pentecostal churches are getting God's sovereignty and scriptural sufficiency. They would not otherwise, and people in Reformed churches would.
As for your second point; I'd have to say practically it's about the same. It's not about the reality of a Reformed church vs. the reality of an interdenominational parachurch - it's about how practically those things play out.
In my experience, denominations separate body parts. And actually, to be honest, I haven't seen parachurch ministries do that as much; though I have seen them separate out people from other generations. And though that's certainly not a good thing, there's not really a warrant in Scripture for saying that we need multi-generational churches that I can think of off the top o' my head.
However, as far as the gifts go - yep, you're right. The thing with parachurches is a) I don't really think they separate the body parts out, and b) if they are - they're not functioning properly.
For instance, at Summer Project last summer (TC!), by the end of the summer, the students were largely under the care and authority of a local pca church. Fellowship and doctrine and discipline and the sacraments were had there, and the ministry of evangelism still was going on.
Problem is when parachurches start fulfilling all the roles of the local churches. And at that point we're dealing with a church simply not admitting that it is a church. And being disobedient about the sacraments. (Incidentally, this means that I define a 'true church' much differently than the Reformers did - but that's because the church at Corinth was a church, even if it was being really dumb about the sacraments! Plus, I'd call Redeemer Pres. a true church even if they don't celebrate baptism properly.)
So what I do - I funnel people in, see them trust Jesus, begin the dicipleship process, and then plug them into the authority of a local (Reformed) church, such that the means of grace are met for them there, and Cru is a ministry opportunity and outlet for them that is particular to their living situation.
So I think with your second point there - it's really about how a church OR a parachurch org. practically functions. And I don't think that parachurches have to (nor in my experience actually do - but that experience is limited) separate out the body parts.
But they sometimes inadvertently become churches.