Para-church Missions
One of the modern phenomena in the evangelical world has been the rise of para-church groups, organizations that do spiritual work outside of the oversight of elders. Probably the most well-known para-church group is Campus Crusade for Christ. In Reformed circles there are also many such groups. There is no doubt that para-church groups have done many good things for the Church.

What is wrong with the para-church movement?
First, like mission boards, para-church groups are usually dependent upon a paid staff that must first meet its budget before it can carry out mission work. The Biblical model of a direct relationship between the church and the missionary does not require administrative expenditures as in para–church organizations. Fund-raising for these groups is in the hands of a bureaucratic staff, not elders and deacons.

Second, supervision of missionaries in para-church groups is usually the responsibility of bureaucrats. Men in organizations such as Campus Crusade choose not to or refuse to work within the confines of the church. They are, by their own statement, non-Presbyterian in government. They ignore that it is the church that has been given the mandate for mission work. This is complicated by the fact that many people in mission situations see Campus Crusade as a church. The Biblical model requires oversight of the local congregation or jointly with neighboring congregations. When para-church groups send missionaries, they are usurping the authority of the congregations.

Third, as budget-driven organizations, boards and para-church groups must often seek the worldly proof of success of the missionary enterprise. They must therefore raise money and build an organization. Mission is often viewed as a McDonald’s franchise – if you can’t produce and quickly, you are shut down. In this environment missionaries must either buckle under pressure and “produce” results, by whatever means, or stand and face the music for not producing results.

Fourth, para-church groups tend to have well-trained or untrained men (and women) as their missionaries. Commenting on this, Morris said in Christianizing Christendom: “ THE NEW PROPAGANDISTS ARE MORE CONSPICUOUS AS LEADERS OF “MOVEMENTS,” WITHOUT THEOLOGICAL TRAINING, WHOSE EXPERIENCE IN SOUL-WINNING CONSISTS LARGELY IN GRATUITOUS ADVICE AND PROFESSIONAL PLATFORM - PLATITUDES AND MEANINGLESS GENERALITIES.” Men of financial affairs want the church reorganized, no longer on ecclesiastical lines, but, according to “approved business methods.” Rationalists, tinctured with German Kultur and afflicted German scholarship, join the chorus of those who decry the old order of things and become advocates of the new adventure.

Fifth, para-church groups tend to treat all missions the same way. This is dangerous. Each missionary situation has its unique features. Some mission works are slower to begin, then rapidly grow. Others are the opposite. Some have to deal with civil persecution. Some have to deal with religious persecution. One particular area that often delays the growth of a church plant that is often overlooked, particularly in Reformed circles, is the presence of the occult and a strong demonic presence. (How many mission works are there in Japan today?) Demographic studies often cloud the reality of these problems.

Sixth, parachurch groups tend to be more prone to introducing unbiblical standards in their local appointments. Morris describes the nature and work of these para-church groups that were surfacing even at the beginning of the 20th century: “At the same time many volunteer movements and semi-secular organizations have become parasites, which flourish at the expense and life of the church...If the great apostasy comes it will probably be through such instrumentalities secularizing and lowering the standard of spiritual religion.” The danger lies in the fact that doctrines, once held dearly by the churches, are put in the background in favor of a kind of synthetic harmony. The quest for harmony has led to a quest for the lowest common denominator in doctrines. The gospel is then put in the hands of public relations specialists, not with those who have been trained in the Scriptures. It is easier in some churches to go on the mission field with less theological training.

Historians have already conceded that The Student Christian Movement from 1850-1900: The YMCA (1884), Inter-Collegiate YMCA (1877), Inter-Seminary Alliance (1880), Student Volunteer Movement (1886), and the World Student Christian Federation (1896), at best, have outlived their usefulness. At worst, did much more harm than good to the mission field.

Some have argued in favor of para-church groups because of the failure of the church in doing its job. Others have argued that God has blessed the world through para-church groups. Let us remember that while God spoke through Balaam’s donkey, but who is calling for its ordination? And isn’t the Reformed church to be Reformed in methodology as well as theology? Pragmatism must not be come king. Wasn’t pragmatism used to introduce women teachers and elders during the Industrial Revolution when men were too busy working?

Isn’t it the job of the church to take charge of the job of evangelization and directly oversee the work of her ministers? Don’t delegate your job. Maybe it is even time to reconsider the causes on the offering schedule.

Rants

Christmas feelings and significance

City sidewalks, busy sidewalks, dressed in holiday style…in the air there is a feeling of Christmas. So go two lines from a famous song that you are hearing everywhere. What is this “feeling” of Christmas? Christmas does seem to always stir up some feelings…but are they really Christmas feelings?

Like most others, Christmas feelings might make you recall your youth and the fun you had around this time every year. You probably remember the fresh baked goodies…and fruit cakes. (If you are older you would remember fruitcakes that weren’t bought in the supermarket.) You probably remember going to Santa Claus, and listening to carolers coming by the house on Christmas Eve. And who could forget the stockings and the presents…and the trip down to the Christmas tree early on Christmas morning, and tearing open those presents.

You might even remember going to church on Christmas Eve or early on Christmas day – that’s what most people did. Those memories are etched on your mind and no one can take them away.

No wonder there are feelings of Christmas.

And this trend is not exclusive to North America. In South American we had Christmas trees and tried may Christmas customs too. And we had genuine feelings of Christmas. People just seemed to be happy. I learned from my Chinese friends that Christmas is even catching on in China. There it is known as a holiday for youth. Many of them can’t wait long enough for Christmas.

As warm and wonderful as those traditions are, somewhere along the line, the true significance of Christmas is missed. Why?

1. Christmas reminds us of the humiliation of Jesus. What do I mean by the “humiliation of Jesus?” I mean that Jesus had to submit to the weak people and human systems of this world that have been corrupted by sin. He did this so that he would be able to save those who are trapped by their corrupt and sinful hearts. Specifically, Christ was humiliated by taking on human form. Though he was from heaven, he had to take on a human body.

But there is more. He was born in a manger…a place for feeding cows. It was most likely a cold night, in a dark smelly place, in a cave somewhere. He was not handsome. He was born into a poor family and had a carpenter father. This is in contrast to what you often see in the painting and pictures. There was no warn cozy fire going, or a cute little stable in the middle of a pleasant pasture. Mary was no doubt exhausted. Joseph was tired, and no doubt felt alone as no one took them in their home.

There was still more. Jesus and his family had to run away to Egypt. They lived on the poor side of the country. He had to go without sleep and food. He was betrayed by one of his friend, denied by another one, and abandoned by all. He had to die a painful and most shameful death on the cross. The Jews and the Romans laughed at him, spat on him, mocked him, put a crown of thorns on his head, and finally they buried him. The Son of God had to be humiliated in a most extraordinary way.

This is the feeling to which Christmas ought to lead.

2. Christmas must also be a time of rejoicing in the work of God. This is what the angels who announced Jesus birth to the shepherds were doing and what they wanted the shepherds to do. More, the shepherds, when they found out that Jesus was indeed born as the angels had said, went around telling everyone. (You can read this story in Luke Chapter 2.) This is how they celebrated the very first Christmas. They were not contented with the joy they had in knowing that peace and come to themselves, but they wanted the world to know and to share that peace.

Christmas is significant because it leads to the full account of the work of Jesus. Jesus came to live for you. By his living and perfectly obeying the Father, God counts Jesus’ living as your living. Jesus came to die for your sins. His humiliating death was done as a substitute for you who would have had to die for your own sins. He did what you could not do. The full truth is that if he were not humiliated in his birth, life, and death, then you would have had to face worse humiliation in the end and die for your self in hell.

Now, I don’t want to spoil your celebration this coming Christmas, but I have to ask you this question: What kind of feeling would you have this Christmas now that you have been reminded of the proper significance of Christmas? Would it move beyond the Christmas lights, Christmas sights, Christmas smells, and Christmas sounds? I hope that it will. I hope you will be like the shepherds who believed the words the angels told them…and then went about telling others the Good News of Jesus. This is what gives Christmas real meaning.

Rants

Christmas feelings and significance

City sidewalks, busy sidewalks, dressed in holiday style…in the air there is a feeling of Christmas. So go two lines from a famous song that you are hearing everywhere. What is this “feeling” of Christmas? Christmas does seem to always stir up some feelings…but are they really Christmas feelings?

Like most others, Christmas feelings might make you recall your youth and the fun you had around this time every year. You probably remember the fresh baked goodies…and fruit cakes. (If you are older you would remember fruitcakes that weren’t bought in the supermarket.) You probably remember going to Santa Claus, and listening to carolers coming by the house on Christmas Eve. And who could forget the stockings and the presents…and the trip down to the Christmas tree early on Christmas morning, and tearing open those presents.

You might even remember going to church on Christmas Eve or early on Christmas day – that’s what most people did. Those memories are etched on your mind and no one can take them away.

No wonder there are feelings of Christmas.

And this trend is not exclusive to North America. In South American we had Christmas trees and tried may Christmas customs too. And we had genuine feelings of Christmas. People just seemed to be happy. I learned from my Chinese friends that Christmas is even catching on in China. There it is known as a holiday for youth. Many of them can’t wait long enough for Christmas.

As warm and wonderful as those traditions are, somewhere along the line, the true significance of Christmas is missed. Why?

1. Christmas reminds us of the humiliation of Jesus. What do I mean by the “humiliation of Jesus?” I mean that Jesus had to submit to the weak people and human systems of this world that have been corrupted by sin. He did this so that he would be able to save those who are trapped by their corrupt and sinful hearts. Specifically, Christ was humiliated by taking on human form. Though he was from heaven, he had to take on a human body.

But there is more. He was born in a manger…a place for feeding cows. It was most likely a cold night, in a dark smelly place, in a cave somewhere. He was not handsome. He was born into a poor family and had a carpenter father. This is in contrast to what you often see in the painting and pictures. There was no warn cozy fire going, or a cute little stable in the middle of a pleasant pasture. Mary was no doubt exhausted. Joseph was tired, and no doubt felt alone as no one took them in their home.

There was still more. Jesus and his family had to run away to Egypt. They lived on the poor side of the country. He had to go without sleep and food. He was betrayed by one of his friend, denied by another one, and abandoned by all. He had to die a painful and most shameful death on the cross. The Jews and the Romans laughed at him, spat on him, mocked him, put a crown of thorns on his head, and finally they buried him. The Son of God had to be humiliated in a most extraordinary way.

This is the feeling to which Christmas ought to lead.

2. Christmas must also be a time of rejoicing in the work of God. This is what the angels who announced Jesus birth to the shepherds were doing and what they wanted the shepherds to do. More, the shepherds, when they found out that Jesus was indeed born as the angels had said, went around telling everyone. (You can read this story in Luke Chapter 2.) This is how they celebrated the very first Christmas. They were not contented with the joy they had in knowing that peace and come to themselves, but they wanted the world to know and to share that peace.

Christmas is significant because it leads to the full account of the work of Jesus. Jesus came to live for you. By his living and perfectly obeying the Father, God counts Jesus’ living as your living. Jesus came to die for your sins. His humiliating death was done as a substitute for you who would have had to die for your own sins. He did what you could not do. The full truth is that if he were not humiliated in his birth, life, and death, then you would have had to face worse humiliation in the end and die for your self in hell.

Now, I don’t want to spoil your celebration this coming Christmas, but I have to ask you this question: What kind of feeling would you have this Christmas now that you have been reminded of the proper significance of Christmas? Would it move beyond the Christmas lights, Christmas sights, Christmas smells, and Christmas sounds? I hope that it will. I hope you will be like the shepherds who believed the words the angels told them…and then went about telling others the Good News of Jesus. This is what gives Christmas real meaning.

Rants

Position Paper on Birth Control
Mitchell Persaud – e-mail discussion group.
I am in favor of no birth control in general. I will list what I believe to be the possible exceptions.
God called man to multiply and fill the earth. It is understood that to multiply and fill the earth (the whole scope of the command) is a greater thing than having children. Having and raising godly children is part of multiplying and filling the earth. If you have children and they are not raised rightly and die in their sins or die young because of lack of instruction or food, then you are not filling the earth…physically and spiritually.
How having children has become the greatest or only the focus of the command is anyone’s guess. Postmils have always argued for a spiritual dominion view– God’ news spreading to all men – not a physical multiplication resulting in dominion – though that is not denied as a means used to this end.
Note that the blessing/command of Genesis 9 - to Noah, implies not only Divine sovereignty, but also human responsibility. He must exercise his common sense, based on God’s Word, on how to fulfill the whole scope of the law. This is the same idea of Genesis 1:28 - Then God blessed them, and God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it; have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves on the earth."
If the focus of the command is multi-faceted, then it must be approached that way. Having dominion over the animals, while not on the same level of having children, is part of the command. And witnessing and preaching are parts of having dominion. Working is part of the command in having dominion. But one does not have to witness and preach day and night – prayer does not have to be “without ceasing” physically. To do so is to ignore one’s wife and children…a greater responsibility. So with having children…if a greater responsibility (as dealing with your wife’s spiritual condition or physical condition) requires that you give up fulfilling part of the command to multiply and fill the earth, you should. It is a normal logical conclusion based on biblical presuppositions. The Scripture commands men to work: If a man does not work he should not eat. It does not give man the right to work and not have family worship with his children. And by reason of importance, if a man is unable to have family worship because of his job, he ought to be looking at other work, family worship being of greater importance.
A woman who finds herself sick (some of you know one with Chronic Fatigue Syndrome and other complications) may not be able to have children or face incredible pain and danger in childbirth and in raising children. She might not be able to fulfill this part of the kingdom command even though she is married, but she might be able to pray for leaders and write to MP’s and give good help to other women. This is all part of having dominion mandate. If one were able to kill to protect life, why might one not be able to refrain from having children to protect life?
The Roman Catholic teaching that sex is only for procreation deny the Scripture that God’s first reason for giving man a wife was for companionship…It is not good for man to be alone. I Cor. 7:5 - Do not deprive one another except with consent for a time, that you may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again so that Satan does not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.God also give woman to be a helper in his tasks.
More still, the children procreated in marriage are to be used for the purpose of having dominion over the earth…in all things…not just by having other children. If you don’t have the time, energy and other resources to do this, you might be keeping the law in one area but failing miserably in another. A wise preacher reminded me today that we should seek to have our quiver full but the arrows must be straight. Therefore, if the mother and father can’t physically fulfill their responsibility (of course this, like all other laws, are subject to fraud) then they are breaking another one of God’s law…not raising godly seed. They may only be able to have dominion over ten kids. If they are not able to rule fifteen, then they have caused more trouble in Xians having dominion over the earth because others have to be involved in raising their other five. (Life becomes busy for the elders and deacons.) God gives us many different gifts.
The wise preacher also said that the wife is compared to a vine. Psalm 128, I think. Jesus is pictured as the one who prunes the vine (the church) so it will produce more. I hope you can see the analogy. Spending time to prune and care for one’s wife can give time to produce better. If a wife were given time to strengthen her muscles after having C-section in order to have regular birth (and practice birth control in the meanwhile) she would be able to have more children in the long run… Should short-sightedness be the order of the day because of an absolute demand for no birth control? And who best to make this decision, but the husband and wife?

Additional Arguments
Abstinence is a form of birth control. Those who may not use lab produced methods of birth control are still practicing birth control. But who determines how much abstinence is birth control? Is there a measure of how often a man must have sex with his wife? Once per week…Five times? Then to take this command literally one must do a lot of work… Those who feel absolutely no birth control could be practiced at anytime must have the obligation for instance to keep a thermometer in his wife’s mouth each morning to know when she is ovulating. If he does not do so then he is practicing birth control because he is not making every effort in his power to promote having children.
The reason I have chosen to speak on this matter when I am principally against birth control is the kind of blanket statements that are thrown around as: gov’t should ban all birth control, birth control is evil, people who use birth-control don’t trust God.
A man who practices birth control (though probably on very few occasions) might be showing great compassion for his sick wife. (I firmly believe that most people practice birth control for selfish reasons. I am not addressing them.)
I recognize that most people use birth control because they are lazy, covetous, dishonoring parents, indifferent, selfish, not wanting to honor God, etc. And God judges sin. I also recognize that doctors often give false advice. We were asked six times whether we wanted to prevent having children when my wife was having our first born by C-section.
We must guard our tongues (and do we ever need this one), and work on our part of multiplying and filling the earth… And by the way, pray that we can be used by God for #3. We are being forced by God to learn patience.

Rants
Question and Answers :
I agree with you on what you wrote about. However, in reality, the real effect is that hyper-Calvinism does a lot of damage on the efforts of bringing unity in Christ's church, demonstrating Christian love towards each other despite our human-conditioned differences. I mean, on a concrete practice or implementation level.
While I agree that hyper-Calvinism does much damage, one cannot assume that the error of Arminianism is the balance. They are both wrong. But I would argue that Calvinism teaches much more of the grace of God than Arminianism does. (I was raised Arminian.) The Arminian is never fully taught the doctrine ofGod...only superficially...and therefore cannot understand his great love. If one does not see how just God is, he cannot appreciate the grace of Christ. If one does not see man is totally depraved he cannot appreciate the extent of Christ's love.
God's love is emphasized by this great justice. Love cannot be taught in a vacuum. This is a major weaknes of Arminian teaching. It puts too much emphasis on the ability of man. On the other hand, the hyper-Calvinist rob man of his responsibility to respond to God. To them, man is nothing short of being a robot.
The different emphasis or focus on various doctrines does have a great impact upon our literal implementation of practicing Christian love towards each other. Too much emphasis on God's election while negelecting God's love towards sinners (John 3:16) has no positive bearings over world evangelism and showing Christian love towards sinners. The existence of Arminism may have a positive effect in bringing this overbearings of Calvinism or hyper-Calvinism into Biblical balance.
My understanding is that, christianity is, first and most, through our faith and personal walk with God, knowing the unconditional love of God towards the underserved and then witnessing or domonstrating this kind of love towards other sinners.
While what you say here is abolutely true, one cannot know God's love unless one knows the nature of God. Christians cannot love each other until they know how and why God loves them. Love is of God and from God. As before, God's justice shows the greatness of his grace and mercy. When one compares the preaching and effects of Jonathan Edwards as opposed to John Wesley...one sees the difference. Both were powerful preachers of God's love...but one emphasized man's sinfulness. What some call "wisdom" in preaching by de-emphasizing the doctrine of God, actually weaken the converts. The converts have a greater view of himself and a lesser view of. Only faithful preaching will change that.
Without knowing and domonstrating this love of God towards each other, no man will come to have the right mind of God (sound doctrinces) and knowing that how God works His salvation towards us. In this sense, Wesley's deliberate emphasis on God's love towards sinners and Christian love towards each other rather than God's elections towards his Chosen, I believe, is appropriate. In terms of christian evangelism, a sinner must first come to know the love of God in christ and submit his mind to Christ in order that he might have the mind of Christ through the ongoing relationship with Christ and through the teacher of Holy Spirit .
Here I believe a Christian must first know God - the whole doctrine of God...not his love first. This is what moves him to submission and then receive God love.
I thank God for Calvin's contribution to Christian theology. However, I do not think that every Christian needs to become a Calvinist in order to be saved.
You are right, no one needs to become a "Calvinist" in order to be saved. There are many good Christians who are not Calvinist (like most of my family). I argue that the weakness of one who is not a Calvinist is he is not able to give God all the glory due to his name because he denies or does not know the greatness of Christ (unconditional election, irresistiblity of his grace, and preservation of the saints) and the full extent of man's sinfulness (total depravity).
In Christ's love.
Mitchell

Mission Boards and Committees: Danger
Introduction:
Southern Presbyterian scholar, James H. Thornwell (1812-1862), along with other Old School Presbyterians, were sharp critics of the model of missions they saw developing in their day. That new model relied on the use of Parachurch groups and denominational boards and committees to more and more carry out the role of missions. Thornwell was right in his condemnation of this dangerous practice that was neither Biblical nor efficient.

Today it seems that the church is reaping the benefits of rejecting the wisdom of men like Thornwell. The effects, however, have been felt for a long time. The church not only created committees and boards to run missions, but some denominations eventually went to independent mission boards. The church became separated from its command to “Go into all the world and preach the gospel.”

Dangers:
Thornwell, writing to Dr. Robert Jefferson Breckinridge (1800-1871) said: “I believe that the Boards will eventually prove our masters, unless they are crushed in their infancy. They are founded upon a radical misconception of the true nature and extent of ecclesiastical power; and they can only be defended, by running into the principle against which the Reformers protested...” In other words, Mission Boards would spread their claws everywhere.

There are also many practical dangers to mission boards. For example: Church boards tend toward the developing of a professional missionary cadre so everything on the mission field is designed to perpetuate the institution. Consequently there is less and less interest in aggressively training men for the ministry and turning the local congregations over to the nationals. More, in order to justify their existence, Mission Boards often need to pressure missionaries to produce results. Results make it possible to “sell” the missionary.

Historical:Historically, on his first missionary journey, Paul was sent out by the congregation at Antioch or possibly by a group of churches. He then reported to the church at Antioch upon completing his work. His home church was not an outside board, but the elders.

The first semblance of church boards, however, was organized when missionaries were sent out to meet and evangelize the barbarians after Constantine recognized the church. Later, during the time of the Reformation, the Reformers had to quickly consolidate their positions from the Roman Church, and then soon after had to battle with the Counter-Reformation. There was not a lot of time available to be given to mission strategies. The Roman Church won more converts in the pagan world than it lost in the Protestant Reformation.

Later, missionary societies developed amid the laziness and ignorance of the church. For example, when William Carey proposed at a ministerial meeting that they discuss the implications of the Great Commission, Dr. John C. Ryland retorted: "Young man, sit down. When God pleases to convert the heathen, He will do it without your aid or mine." Carey then worked for a mission board to do what the church was not doing - sending missionaries to foreign lands. And while mission board’s motives were good, their means of performing a task not delegated to them was erroneous.

These societies then set the stage for the American mission boards – both foreign and domestic. Here many mission boards were founded because the laity wanted to delegate that responsibility of sending missionaries. From these developed the Student Missionary Movement and groups such as Campus Crusade, etc. With no direct oversight of the local church, ill-equipped missionaries (often youths) were sent off to the mission field and quietly made a mess of things, compromising the Gospel. (Poor eschatology certainly promoted these missionaries as well.)

What is the answer to this problem? Thornwell’s answer is still valid today: “I am satisfied that there is a dangerous departure, in the present age of bustle, activity, and vain-glorious enterprise, from the simplicity of the institutions which Christ has established for the legitimate action of the Church. He has appointed one set of instrumentalities, and ordained one kind of agency in His kingdom; but we have made void his commandments, in order to establish our own inventions. I believe that the entire system of voluntary Societies and ecclesiastical Boards, for religious purposes is fundamentally wrong. The church, as organized by her Head, is competent to do all that he requires of her. He has furnished her with the necessary apparatus of means, officers, and institutions, in Sessions, Presbyteries, Elders, Pastors, and Evangelists…”

Congregations must know and assume their responsibilities for sending out missionaries. They, unlike the Mission Board, have a personal command from God and a personal knowledge of the man they send. If a congregation were too small, she should work with other congregations to supervise and support a missionary. On the other hand, Mission Boards must be abolished and repent for the trouble they have caused to the Lord’s Church. While the local Consistory can appoint committees to do some work in missions, spiritual oversight remains the work of the Consistory as a whole – as in our case in Scarborough. Thanks brothers for not putting me out of the church’s oversight! Watch me!