I'm familiar with the term parachurch. Supposedly for the last 50 years or so, this term is used to describe an organization that cooperates with a church or churches that accomplish some ministry end. I am also familiar with parachurch because this was the term often used to describe the izzy group ministry several years ago.
I'm not a big fan of parachurch, the term or the concept. The concept is basically this: the parachurch (parasite) does ministry, such as giving away free groceries to poor people, etc. It is hosted and/or supported by a church (the mothership). Parasite does the dirty work, mothership does the Sunday social club. And never the two shall mix.
The church has a habit of creating separate entities to do the mission of Jesus instead of being the mission themselves. I guess this is to prevent their Sunday club from getting messy or becoming different.
I only know of a handful of churches that I would consider being a mission first and a meeting secondary. One of them is Pastor Hawking's church here in the fair mother city. Then there's pastor Bubba of Johnson County, Texas (south of Ft. Worth) where rednecks were invented. His church of about 250-300 feeds and outreaches hundreds of trailer parks throughout that entire county. And literally...the whole church shows up to do the work (not just 5 or 6 people). Also, Pastor Bubba's former associate, Pastor Jimbo, who does the same kind of gig in the impoverished Sansom Park area of Ft. Worth where lots of poor elderly folks live.
Who said church has to be an orderly, routine meeting with sacraments, worship songs and preaching. What's wrong with turning it into a BBQ party for the poor once in a while?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
12 comments:
no doubt. i would think that feeding the poor is a sacrament, and worship and a form of preaching.
Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world.
that sounds more like a BBQ than the fufa-rah most christians engage on sunday... and why should we wait for sunday?
I basically ditto the previous post and comments. I am definitly in favor of BBQ! (I am an eater; eating is what I do.)
I am particularly thrilled to see Agent B put the responsibility back on the church and call the bluff on the social club. Additionally, I am glad to have a short list of churches I might want to attend and help out with should I leave here.
All that being said, let me also suggest that those sacraments are prophetic witnesses of a New World Order. (not so much about neatness, though not devoid of that either) And I think the collection plate is the red headed step child of the sacraments, unfortunately. These sacraments all in various ways, and among other important things to be sure, all point to the lordship of Jesus.
Even the collection says that though Caesar collects taxes by force in a world of scarcity where little people go hungry in the shadow of malevolent empire, Jesus raises a tribute given cheerfully and overflowing with love and generosity in a world of abundant gift. And little people are esteemed in the Kingdom.
Be careful not to marginalize the church. The post actually does a real good job of clarifying where the responsibility rests.
I would rather the church begin to see itself as the 'body of Christ' than as a group of His followers. I think the distinction has more to do with the way we appropriate those images than with semantics or exegesis. But as a group of followers, we must make in-group dynamics and church politics and comfort zones a higher priority than the mission. As the body of Christ, we must seek out way(s) in which our cooperate self should behave like the body of Christ we meet in scripture - and I suspect touching lepers, feeding the hungry, and sacrificing peronal comfort for the sake of others will shoot right to the top of the agenda.
Many blessings....
Good question Miller. Why Sunday.
Be careful not to marginalize the church.
what does that word mean? i don't even tell people i belong to a church because the culturally accepted definition of that word no longer applies to the group i fellowship with. i can run with "don't marginalize the body"... but "the church" is out of the game.
But as a group of followers, we must make in-group dynamics and church politics and comfort zones a higher priority than the mission.
i'm going to assume there's a typo in that statement.
with regard to the "why Sunday" question...
because we lack imagination.
peace
My mention of your 'sunday' comment was a mild inside joke for any readers of these coments from the izzy group and/or close friends of mine.
Sunday has not been a hangup of mine for at least 4-5 years.
So, I reiterate your question. Yes...why Sunday?
well, historically the church gathers on suday cause that is when jesus was raised.
not that we should be slavish about it but sunday seems to work just as well if not better than any other day.
while i agree with the gist of b's post i would like to add balance and just say that we need to be careful that in our deconstruction of the church we don't go too far.
the point here being we need to understand that it is unhealthy to have a dicotomy between "church" and "parachurch" and we can recognize that with out deconstructing the whole thing.
Are the changes and challenges "deconstructing" or restoring? We see them as deconstructing because we have only known "church" as we have experienced it in the building, in ritual, in our cultural norms and accepted generation's practices. I have the distinct notion that if you transplanted the early disciples into one of our "services" no matter what denomination, they would find it extremely different, even poluted by the world. To me, the important part is to Love God and Love others. Does our idea of church allow and fascilitate that? If not, what are we really holding on to? It was amazing once we stopped frequenting the Sun. ritual how we saw the shallowness of relationships we thought were so close just because we said "hi" on Sundays or even went to small groups with. Did we covenant together? No, because those relationships dissapeared if we no longer met when they were meeting. When I look back to relationships that changed my heart to be more like Christ it was in ministry "outside" of the "church" (ie. sunday stuff). I knew then what real church was and what walking in Christ was, everyday.
i want to hear more from agent wife.
agent wife can preach!
Miller,
No typo. Perhaps I am not making myself clear. But I said it like I see it.
To rephrase: In being/doing church (which ever you like), we should conform our community to the image of Jesus rather than conform Jesus into our image.
All protestant churches wrestle with this in one way or another, but CoC particularly has a heritage of conforming to a 'pattern' of what a church should look like. It goes to the Bible to dig out bits of commands etc and treats it like a book of ordinances -like the U.S. Constitution. I am suggesting that there is a fatal flaw in this mentality in that we are constantly obssessed with ourselves. It makes the church into a mini-spiritual reflection of our country. (By the way it invites cultural influence in at the foundation this way.)
Rather, if we are looking at Jesus and doing what He does, I think our mission will rise on this list of our priorities - functionally as well as verbally.
I am sure that is a gross oversimplification. But I am not bailing out on the church. Even though it is deeply flawed, and has been from the beginning, and even Jesus own disciples fell asleep in the Garden and scattered at the moment of truth, "The Gates of Hell will not prevail against it."
I think this blog is very bold in its criticisms of God's people. I think in one sense that is very hard, and the conclusions it presents have been hard won. After a fashion, it is prophetic. But in another sense, the criticisms are very easy. The biggest problem in pointing out the church's flaws is the ways it which historically those criticisms have been "off limits" like criticizing the government in China. Every one sees the problem, no one wants to speak up about it.
Jesus had great criticsm for Israel too, Herod-fox, bruised reed; Pharisees -hypocrites, vipors etc etc. But He did not quit on Israel, rather He became King and thus very much indorsed Israel (obviously not as it stood, but as it should be in the hands of God). And I am suggesting a similar criticism from with in. A confrotive love.
It is my position. So I present it. I hope that provides clarity, at least, even if it is not popular. And I offer it charitably, I hope it will be received likewise.
Many blessings...
well, good luck with that... i've been down that road and never found a fork or a turn, nothing that suggests hope for change.
BTW, its not God's people i've given up on, it's the institution. institutions are good for one thing, chopping, grinding, mascerating, pureeing, any good hearted individual that wants to work through said institution for good and squirting them into a mold that is shaped in a way that best suits the institution.
i percieve you are a good hearted individual.
Post a Comment