| Lausanne Occasional Paper 24 |
|
|
|
|
NO TRANSLATION AVAILABLE Cooperating in World Evangelization: A Handbook on Church/Para-Church Relationships
Contents Foreword Recent years have witnessed a rapid increase in the number of Christian organisations around the world. These specialised ministry groups have, for the most part, grown out of a genuine desire to help fulfil the task of world evangelization. But they have not always been seen in that light by the Church in its congregational or denominational expression. It must be said with equal emphasis that some of these "parachurch" groups have not always shown the respect and acceptance which characterised the Christ who "loved the Church and gave himself for it." It is, therefore, not surprising that a spirit of prejudice and mistrust has developed between these two entities, though both strive to extend the Kingdom of God, of which they are part. This has often deteriorated to the point where co-operation in the mission of the Church becomes impossible. In his Theological Preamble which follows, John Stott, with clarity and brevity, suggests that church/para-church tension is a reflection of "the age-old tension between authority and freedom." Christians are urged, in that same preamble, to recognise that independence of the church is bad, co-operation with the church is better, service as an arm of the church is best. But herein lies a further problem. Many para-church groups contend that it is precisely this kind of accountable relationship which blunts the cutting edge of their ministries. Such an arrangement would, they feel, spell failure to their programmes because of bureaucracy, red tape and the quagmire of ecclesiastical decision-making. It was because of this impasse that the Lausanne Committee for World Evangelization established an international Commission on Evangelical Co-operation. As part of the Consultation on World Evangelization, which convened in Pattaya, Thailand, June 15th-27th, 1980, the Commission was conceived as having a supportive role. Its purpose was to enhance the possibility of carrying out the strategies drawn up by the 17 mini-consultations which formed the major part of the gathering. Six sub-commissions were appointed to enable the Commission to bring recommendations to the entire Consultative Council at Pattaya. Two of the six were seen as having ongoing relevance in the task of world evangelization. Consequently, following the submission of brief statements from all six sub-commissions (which were adopted and included in the Thailand statement), it was felt desirable to do further work on "Church/para-church relationships" which would include some limited aspects of "church-missions relationships." The group consequently reconvened throughout the second week to grapple with the issues outlined in this document, in which it is referred to as "the Commission." It soon became obvious that we could in no way come near completion of this task in the time available. It was, therefore, proposed that I should bring together the multiplicity of contributions and conclusions, do whatever further research was necessary and draft a document which would help us to co-operate in our evangelistic task. Unforeseen illness regrettably delayed the drafting process, but on its completion in early 1983, LCWE approved the release of the report for publication. At that time I was also asked to prepare a study guide, so that our findings could be more productively discussed by leaders in both church and para-church alike. Even a cursory thumbing through these pages will suffice to note that this paper was not written as an academic exercise. Other than the work underlying Appendix A, on para-church validity, these are essentially practical, down-to-earth suggestions. Those of us who took part in the discussions are actually involved in the day-to-day task of world evangelization. The pleas and cries for help are therefore coming from the heat of the battlefield and not from our ivory towers. Many of our thoughts were born out of the painful procedure of exposing our own weaknesses. We found it necessary to humbly confess our sinfulness and to seek strength to change our selfish ways. We believe we saw what you see and felt what you feel, as Christian leaders. It will not be surprising, therefore, if you also experience that pain as you read and respond. This is particularly true because we decided to "tell it like it is" about the problems which prevent our working together. Some of our observations will appear quite blunt, and many of these are of a rather personal nature. But we are convinced they must be brought out into the open. For as we have struggled together, we have learned that co-operation in evangelism cannot be built on the shaky foundation of strained relationships. The ten of us packed 22 sessions into two short weeks. But we have come to love and trust one another. Though from five continents and vastly differing backgrounds and cultures, we were able to enter into open, honest dialogue. Because our common bond in Christ transcended other differences, we came to realise that when we could trust our brother's motives, we did not have to agree with him. The need to resolve these issues is now more acute than ever. But it is our hope that this document will not become a mere focal point for discussion. The need is for action. We would therefore pray that this will be but the beginning of an ongoing determination to actually scale those walls which will otherwise divide us and paralyse our evangelistic initiatives to reach the unreached peoples of the world. Keith A. Price Our starting point is Paul's exhortation to the Philippians: "Only let your manner of life be worthy of the gospel of Christ, so that whether I come and see you or am absent, I may hear of you that you stand firm in one spirit, with one mind striving side by side for the faith of the gospel" (1:27). It is clear from this Scripture that Christian conduct which is worthy of the gospel (that is, authentically "evangelical") will be marked by stability and unity in the gospel. Those who share "the faith of the gospel" (the "evangelical faith") are both to "stand firm" in it and to "strive side by side" for it. We are to do so "in one spirit" and "with one mind." Paul reverts to his theme in the second chapter, begging his readers to complete his joy "by being of the same mind, having the same love, being in full accord and of one mind" (v.2), and he goes on to argue that this "one" mind is a "humble" mind, the mind of Christ who first "emptied himself" of his glory and then "humbled himself" to serve (vv.5-8). Unity and humility are twins. Or better, unity is humility's child. This being so, repentance and self-abasement are always the uncomfortable conditions of reconciliation. This Christian unity is not to be exhibited only in fellowship, however, but also in co-operation. That is, it is not sufficient that we have together embraced the gospel and therefore recognise each other as fellow-members of God's family. The gospel occupies a central place in the lives of "evangelical" Christians. We not only believe the gospel, but also are concerned to "defend and confirm" it by apologetics (Phil. 1:7,16) and to "further" or "advance" it by evangelism (Phil. 1:4,12), and are willing if necessary to suffer for it (Phil. 1:28-30; cf. 2 Tim. 1:8, 2:9). Moreover, we are to engage in these activities together so that a true "partnership" in the gospel develops (Phil. 1:5). It is true that in Philippians 1, Paul refers to envy and rivalry between different gospel-preaching groups and declares that even in this situation he rejoices. Yet this fact is to be understood as a symptom of Paul's humble Christ-centredness, and not as an excuse for rivalry. What made him rejoice was that Christ was being preached, not that some of the preachers had ulterior motives (Phil. 1:15-18). It is this New Testament emphasis on "striving side by side for the faith of the gospel" which lies behind paragraph 7 of the Lausanne Covenant, which is entitled "Co-operation in Evangelism." It reads: We affirm that the church's visible unity in truth is God's purpose. Evangelism also summons us to unity, because our oneness strengthens our witness, just as our disunity undermines our gospel of reconciliation. We recognise, however, that organisational unity may take many forms and does not necessarily forward evangelism. Yet we who share the same biblical faith should be closely united in fellowship, work and witness. We confess that our testimony has sometimes been marred by sinful individualism and needless duplication. We pledge ourselves to seek a deeper unity in truth, worship, holiness and mission. We urge the development of regional and functional co-operation for the furtherance of the church's mission, for strategic planning, for mutual encouragement, and for the sharing of resources and experience (Jn. 17:21,23; Eph. 4:3, 4; Jn. 13:35; Phil. 1:27; Jn. 17:11-23). Three relevant points may be made about this paragraph. First, it begins with the theological affirmation that unity in truth is God's purpose, rather than with the pragmatic statement that disunity undermines our gospel and mars our testimony. We endorse this order as a right and biblical emphasis. Secondly, the unity in truth which is God's purpose is described as "visible." Although it is added that "organisational unity may take many forms" (and evangelical Christians are not in full accord with each other about this), we are agreed in our rejection of the two extremes of rigidity and formlessness. For on the one hand "the church is the community of God's people rather than an institution" (Para. 6), that is, its essence is people not forms; and on the other, we refuse to take refuge in a concept of spiritual unity which nobody can see. Some kind of visible structure is indispensable. Thirdly, God's summons to unity is strengthened by his summons to evangelism. The two were closely related in the teaching and intercession of Jesus; he pleaded and prayed for his disciples' love and unity, so that the world might believe (Jn. 13:35; 17:21,23). We cannot preach reconciliation if we do not exhibit it. God is creating through Christ a new community, even a "single new humanity" (Eph. 2:15); it is for the bringing into being of this people that Christ died (Titus 2:14). So the church is an essential part of the Good News, and every church proclaiming it must embody it. The people of God must be seen to be what they claim to be. We have no liberty to duck the challenges to a visible fellowship of love. Co-operation or Competition? It is sometimes argued that competition in Christian work is healthy, on the ground that it stimulates and challenges people, and brings the best out of them. This may be true, as an observed fact. In evangelism, as in athletics and commerce, competition can be a spur to success. But an empirical fact is not necessarily a theological truth. Can the competitive spirit in Christian service be defended biblically? Some have attempted to do so by appealing to the law of the jungle and the survival of the fittest. But, though evolutionists may find this argument compelling, it holds no weight with those of us who believe that "nature red in tooth and claw" is contrary to God's perfect will, and who cherish the eschatological vision that one day "the lion shall dwell with the lamb, the leopard shall lie down with the kid" (Is. 11:6ff). Others appeal rather to the market than to the jungle and urge that competition secures better and cheaper products and is therefore ultimately for everybody's good. Again, this may be an observable fact. But we must not assume that the world is necessarily to be a model for the church. We can certainly defend from the Bible the principle that human beings bearing God's image should be free to develop their creative gifts. But it can also be argued from the Bible that they should not use these in such a way as to harm others, especially those who go under in the struggle to survive. Moreover, sometimes the attempt to glorify the spirit of competition among us thinly disguises a sinful evangelical power-struggle of which we need to repent in dust and ashes. At the same time, it is perfectly true that, in general, Christians are exhorted to "consider how to stir up one another to love and good works" (Heb. 10:24); and that, in particular, Paul used the example of Macedonian generosity to stir up the Corinthians to contribute sacrificially to his collection (2 Cor. 8:1-7), just as he had previously used the zeal of the Corinthians to stir up the people of Macedonia (2 Cor. 9:1-5). Nevertheless, we need to observe that the "provocative" nature of Christian example is here only within a common Christian life and work. That is to say, it was in the same local church that the Hebrews were to provoke each other to love and good works, and it was in the same joint enterprise (Paul's collection to relieve Judean Christians' poverty) that the churches of Northern and Southern Greece were used to stimulate each other to generous giving. These important examples may be said, therefore, to encourage mutual stimulus in co-operation not the rivalry of competition. Certainly, the biblical emphasis is rather on co-operation than on competition. Sunergos, "fellow-worker," is a favourite word of Paul's. Though himself an apostle, with a unique position of authority by Christ's appointment, he nevertheless worked humbly and harmoniously with his brother apostles, with the churches and with the individuals who formed his missionary teams. A number of his associates he called sunergos, like Timothy (Rom. 16:21 and possibly 1 Thess. 3:2) and Titus ("my partner and fellow-worker in your service," 2 Cor. 8:23). Also Priscilla and Aquila ("my fellow-workers in Christ Jesus," Rom. 16:3) Urbanus (Rom. 16:9), and Philemon "our beloved fellow-worker," (Philem. 1). Twice he listed a whole group under this epithet, namely Mark, Aristarchus, Demas and Luke "my fellowworkers" (Philem. 24) and Aristarchus, Mark and Jesus Justus as beingâat least during his Roman imprisonmentâthe only Jewish people "among my fellow-workers for the Kingdom of God" (Col. 4:10,11). He also included women among his fellow-workers, like Euodias and Syntyche. They "have laboured side by side with me in the gospel," he wrote, "together with Clement and the rest of my fellow-workers" (Phil. 4:3). Sometimes he added the word "fellowsoldier" which is what he called Archippus (Philem. 2). Thus Epaphroditus was "my brother, fellow-worker and fellow-soldier" (Phil. 2:25) All these were Paul's co-labourers, working with him in the spread of the gospel. John uses the same word when urging local churches to support missionaries, for then, he writes, "we may be fellow-workers in (or with) the truth" (3 Jn. 8). At the same time, if the churches were working with the missionaries, the missionaries regarded themselves as working with the churches, not lording it over them, but labouring with them for their joy (2 Cor. 1:24; cf. 1 Cor. 16:16). And in all this, there was the further recognition that they were working together with God (1 Cor. 3:9; 2 Cor. 6:1) and God with them (Acts 14:27; 15:4). Limits to Co-operation With sorrow, we have to add that co-operation is not always possible. Christian fellowship is not an unprincipled inclusiveness. It has both doctrinal and ethical limits. Thus serious doctrinal error is ground for non-co-operation or separation. Anybody who denies the full deity and humanity of Jesus is "antichrist" (1 Jn 2:22), and anybody who contradicts the gospel of free grace Paul anathematized (Gal. 1:6-9). He even opposed his fellow apostle Peter to his face when his conduct was "not straightforward about the truth of the gospel" (Gal. 2:11-14). Serious moral misconduct comes under the same ban. The local church is called upon to excommunicate a person who is "guilty of immorality or greed" or who is "an idolater, reviler, drunkard or robber," and is impenitent (1 Cor. 6:9-13). Such extreme denials of revealed truth and righteousness call in question the Christian profession of those who are guilty of them. In such cases it is right for us to remember that light and darkness, Christ and Belial, God and idols have nothing in common (2 Cor. 6:14ff). In this paper, however, we are discussing co-operation among evangelical brethrenâbrothers and sisters, that isâwho are agreed in the essentials of the gospel and the gospel holiness. On these matters the Scripture is plain or perspicuous. Our problem is rather over the non-essentials, or what the 16th century Reformers called the adiaphora, the "matters indifferent." Although it would be difficult to make a list of these, it may be sufficient to define them as doctrines and practices regarding which equally biblical Christians, equally concerned to be submissive to Scripture alone, reach different conclusions. On these matters we must give one another liberty. We may privately regard others as having a "weak" or overscrupulous conscience in some matter, but the apostle teaches us to respect and not violate consciences, even if they are "weak." So, although there are grievous situations in which separation is not only permitted, but enjoined, the overwhelming emphasis of the New Testament is on fellowship. We are to accept and not reject one another, remembering that all of us are responsible to Christ as Lord (Rom. 14:1ff). Unity and Diversity The summons to fellowship and co-operation must not be interpreted as a warrant to impose a stereotype and to stifle initiatives. The same New Testament which calls us to unity of mind and spirit recognises and encourages diversity of service. The classic passage is Ephesians 4:3ff, in which, after strongly emphasising that there is "one God and Father of us all," "one Lord," "one Spirit," and therefore "one faith," "one hope," "one baptism" and "one body," the apostle immediately goes on to the diversity of the charismata which equip God's people for a diversity of tasks. We have, therefore, to avoid two opposite mistakes. On the one hand, we must not emphasise our unity in Christ in such a way as to suppress or even hinder the diverse ministries to which God calls his people and for which he gifts them. On the other hand, we must not so revel in the diversity of our gifts and ministries that we make them an excuse to break the unity of Christ's body. Paul envisages this possibility in 1 Cor. 12:14-26, where he condemns both false modesty and false confidence in relation to our gifts. We are neither to denigrate our own gifts and envy others', nor despise others' and exaggerate our own, but rather to recognise and respect each other's gifts, and rejoice in this God-given diversity. Church and Para-church So-called "para-church" agencies and their relationship to the church were discussed at the Lausanne Congress. Their legitimacy is still under debate. All are agreed that specialist functions require specialist organisations (e.g., for Bible translation, student evangelism and crosscultural missions); but who should initiate and operate them? That is the issue. The argument in favour of para-church organisations is largely historical, namely that under God they have made a much greater contribution to world evangelization than has the church. This is indisputable. The contrary argument begins with Scripture rather than history, asserts that only the Church can claim to be a divine creation, and concludes that ideally the Church should itself undertake necessary specialist tasks. It is not easy to reconcile these appeals to history and Scripture, to reality and to the ideal. But since evangelicals desire in all things to be guided by the Bible, we should be able to grade specialist activities thus: independence of the church is bad, co-operation with the church is better, service as an arm of the church is best. In some parts of the world, the language of sociology is being used. The term "sodality" has been in use for several centuries, particularly in the Roman Catholic Church, to describe "a religious guild or brotherhood established for purposes of devotion or mutual help or action." It is, therefore, a voluntary and usually rather loose association, which exists for a precise and limited purpose. In contrast, a "modality" (a much more modern word) tends to be a more formal social structure with clearly defined membership and leadership, and with accepted rules for both. For our purposes, a local church is a "modality," while a para-church organisation is a "sodality." Because, however, the use of these terms is neither widespread nor consistent, it seems wise to employ the more traditional vocabulary. What theological guidelines may be laid down for specialist church (or para-church) organisations? One may perhaps say that Paul's missionary team supplies some biblical warrant for the development of voluntary missionary societies today. At the same time, we need to recognise the cooperative spirit in which Paul worked. Though an apostle, whose commission and gospel came from God not human beings (Gal. 1), he was nevertheless anxious that his ministry be recognised by the Jerusalem apostolate, and that the whole apostolic band work in harmony (Gal. 2). Further, the first missionary journey was not his own idea; nor was it revealed to him directly. On the contrary, the Holy Spirit spoke to a group of five Antiochian church leaders ("prophets and teachers"), instructing them to set him and Barnabas apart for the work to which he had called them. After prayer and fasting "they laid their hands on them and sent them off" (Acts 13:1-3). Context and grammar suggest that the "they" who did this were the other three "prophets and teachers." Whether they did it as individuals or as leading representatives of the Church of Antioch is, however, disputed. Certainly Luke's emphasis is that they were "sent out by the Holy Spirit" (v. 4). On the other hand, they returned to Antioch after the first missionary journey (14:26) and "gathered the church together" to make their report (v. 27). Would they have done this if the church had not shared in their commissioning? Acts 18:22,23 suggests that the same pattern followed the second missionary journey. It is also significant that when a problem and controversy arose, a conference was called to solve it. Thus, when the Greek-speaking and Aramaic-speaking Jews in Jerusalem began to quarrel over the treatment given to their widows, "the twelve summoned the body of the disciples" (Acts 6:1, 2). And when the circumcision controversy threatened to split the Body of Christ, the church of Antioch appointed a delegation "to go up to Jerusalem to the apostles and the elders about this question" (Acts 15:1-3). The issue was then settled amicably because the Spirit led them to a common mind. There was no autocracy even by the apostles alone. Certainly, no individual made an independent decision which was then imposed upon the church. Instead, the mind of the Spirit was sought by and made known to "the apostles and the elders" as a body. Today the tension between church and para-church becomes more acute when a cross-cultural element is added to the structural problem, that is to say, in the relations between national church and foreign mission. There have been faults on both sides. Sometimes missionaries have been insensitive, aggressive or independent (and mission boards have sometimes used their human and economic resources as a power base from which to secure submission to their will), while at other times national church leaders have been short-sighted, autocratic or unappreciative. Once again, the ideal is plain: a humble, brotherly partnership, in which the autonomy of the national church is acknowledged, and both mission and missionaries fulfil a servant role. But what about the sad realities which reflect our human fallenness? Whether we are thinking of national church and foreign mission, or of church and para-church, or of modality and sodality, how should they relate to one another? It would not be possible, or even desirable, to lay down rules and regulations. The overriding principle should, however, be clear. On the one hand, we should encourage and not hinder individual initiatives. Throughout biblical history, especially in times of widespread apostasy among his people, God has called individuals (e.g., prophets) to challenge the establishment, and even to stand over against it. Such individuals are uncomfortable to live with, as are the groups they form around them. Yet we should be extremely wary of surrendering to our natural desire to bring them under control. For we may find ourselves quenching the Spirit of God. On the other hand, whatever initiatives an individual or group may believe themselves called by God to make, they should wherever possible seek the counsel, goodwill, support and co-operation of the church. Indeed, they should desire to be a part of the church's work rather than independent of it. They should not be over-hasty in pronouncing it dead, washing their hands of it. For they may find themselves sinning against the Body of Christ. Here then are the two extremes to be avoided. The tendency of the "establishment" to control individual initiatives runs the risk of quenching the Spirit. The tendency of voluntary organisations to insist on their independence runs the risk of ignoring the Body. It is the age-old tension between authority and freedom. To quench the Spirit and to ignore the Body are both serious sins; they grieve the Christ whose Body and Spirit they are. It is, therefore, basic to our evangelical responsibility that in all our labours and relationships we should magnify Christ by seeking simultaneously to give honour to his Body and liberty to his Spirit. John R.W. Stott The place and role of so-called para-church organisations have been ongoing subjects of discussion and, sometimes, sources of tension and contention in church circles. That debate has frequently had the effect of polarising participants into distinct camps and impeding evangelization endeavours. Some Christians seriously question the validity of all groups other than traditional congregations. Others have no problem in accepting their own denominational groups (such as seminaries, mission-sending agencies or the denominational structure itself) but reject, or at most concede secondary status to non-denominational organisations (see Appendix B). At the opposite end of the spectrum are those who advocate acceptance of para-church agencies not merely as biblical, but as equally "church," in the congregational sense (see Appendix A for an elaboration of this position). Most, however, would probably adopt a position somewhere between these two extremes. They would recognise those special non-congregational Christian ministries (or para-church groups) as necessary tools in the Kingdom of God, while clearly differentiating between them and churchly congregations of believers. (Appendices to this paper delve more deeply into the historical background of this issue and the various attempts to suggest illustrative analogies.) But while theologians, missiologists and sociologists theorise and help us to grapple at a conceptual level with the terms, definitions, historical background and analogies, many Christians find themselves dealing with raw reality. As disciples of the Lord Jesus Christ, they share his concern to reach people everywhere with the Good News and to disciple those who have been reached. They are aware that churches and para-church agencies are involved in Christian work around them. As members of churches, how are they to relate to those organisationsâin terms of co-operation, involvement, prayer and support? Or, if the Christian involved is a pastor of a church or a leader in a para-church agency, how is he or she to relate to the other group? Thus, in preparing this study, we have recognised that we are not grappling merely with a theoretical question unrelated to real life. Our procedure, therefore, has been, first, to face squarely common areas of concern in relationships between churches and para-church agencies; and, then, to suggest practical guidelines for those actually involved out there in "striving side by side for the faith of the gospel." The discussion, the guidelines and the self-check tests should be especially useful for the pastor in a small town, the organisation staff member in a city suburb, the denominational leader in danger of getting out of touch, and the Bible school or seminary teacher whose seed thoughts will grow into fruit-actions, whether they are right or wrong. It is a down-to-earth document, grappling positively with the facts of disharmony and disunity. It is for those of us desperately concerned and deeply involved in the task of world evangelization, often "you in your small corner, and I in mine." It is hoped that the larger theological and missiological issues will continue to be thrashed out by those so qualified. But we cannot wait! We must work concurrently, moving ahead to wrestle with the conflicts that could otherwise tear us apart, allowing nothing to detract us from the task, at the local, national, or global levels. It is the prayer of the Commission that these pages will contribute to that end. A. The Need for Dialogue In our deliberations, we were repeatedly confronted with the pressing need for dialogueâopen, honest, transparent dialogueâbetween pastoral or church leaders on the one hand and those spearheading Christian organisations on the other. Michael Cassidy of African Enterprise, for instance, wrote in his preliminary paper to the Commission: "Time and again, in speaking to different church leaders on this subject, I have had the importance of communication and understanding underlined. Archbishop Bill Burnett of Cape Town put it this way: 'One of the essential features of co-operation is the development of confidence in one another. If those who are responsible for oversight in the church see that the work done by para-church organisations is effective and healthy, they, in turn will give their support ....'" The process of operating independently without love and mutual understanding is "both spiritually and practically hazardous," concludes Cassidy. As we began to wrestle with possible answers to these problems, it quickly became obvious to us that, in most of them, the urgent need was dialogue. It actually reached the point of embarrassment to us that we were not showing enough creativity and variety in coming up with different kinds of solutions. But we had to be honest in our recommendations. For dialogue is most certainly, in our opinion, the primary need. If only we were really open to it! Dialogue has been sometimes wrongly seen by evangelicals as that which belongs to a false ecumenismâthe kind of thing that produces a watered-down compromise of one's beliefs. Our traditionally high view of Scripture makes us more readily in agreement with declaration and proclamationâtools which are, by common assent, vital to our communicating our faith. Yet our God, the sole possessor of the unadulterated truth, says, "Come now, let us reason together." We were made for dialogue, and nothing opens the door of understanding and acceptance as does this. B. A Simulated Dialogue In his paper, Michael Cassidy quickly brought us to the point with a simulated dialogue between a church and a para-church leader. Although most of the problems raised will be discussed more extensively in the body of this paper, a concise overview will help to put us all in the middle of the tension that existsâtension so deep that one pastor feels the two sides are already on a "collision course." (i) Church leader to para-church leader
(ii) Para-church leader to church leader Thank you, my Lord Bishop, Mr. Moderator, Mr. President, brother, Archbishop, or whatever label you like (you know I'm not much into the church scene myself). Let me respond.
Cassidy concludes: "It seems to me that this type of encounter and dialogue is long overdueâeven when it may not initially have a direct and immediate bearing on world evangelization. My point is that without this type of initial and more basic encounter, it is impossible to move on to the agenda of mutual co-operation in world evangelization. A lot of relational debris and misunderstanding must be resolved first. This is a basic prerequisite to getting on to our priority concern." We must not forget that part of the Commission's mandate was also to suggest ways of furthering co-operation between the different para-church groups themselves. While some specific areas of conflict will be discussed in the next section, we repeat that dialogue is again the first priority. It may well be that lack of communication and understanding is an even more serious problem here; because as Cassidy says, "While para-church agencies occasionally tip their caps in the direction of seeking church blessing, they do it even more rarely with each other. The need therefore is for contact and togetherness both formally and informally." C. Results of Thailand Dialogue Dialogue such as that above took place throughout our sessions in Thailand, especially in the first week of the Commission's deliberations. Of the ten participants, two of us (Madinda and Clarke) were, as diocesan bishops, strongly representative of churchly and denominational concerns; seven others (Arana-Quirez, Isan-Chan, Kyle, Landreth, Smedjebacka, Stiller and Tooke) represented the views of a variety of societies or organisations, and one (Price) an equal involvement in both pastoral and para-church ministries. As the second week wore on, having thrashed out a number of theological issues, we felt we were ready to brainstorm and specify some of the hindrances to co-operation we knew existed. We divided into working groups and finished up with a lengthy list of well over one hundred areas of conflict or frictionâeither between church and para-church, or between the different Christian organisations themselves. To simplify the task, these were reduced in number and put into five categories:
The specific suggestions of the Commission are not listed together in a separate section. Rather, they are frequently included in the actual discussion of the problems, and more briefly referred to in the self-check tests which follow each category. There follows, therefore, a consideration of each of these five areas. Some problems overlap and tend to recur in two or three of the categories. It must be emphasised again that the purpose envisaged is not a sophisticated theological discussion of the issues. It is rather a straightforward, easy-to-grasp presenting of the problems, providing the average pastor or leader in a local situation with that which will better equip him to overcome hindrances that exist in the task of local, national, regional, or world evangelization. 3. Hindrances to Co-operation: Dogmatism about Nonessentials and Differing Scriptural Interpretations Churches and para-church agencies usually have precise statements of faith which outline their doctrinal convictions. An examination of those statements would reveal a large area of shared beliefs common to most of them. Indeed, an outside observer would probably conclude that there were few essential differences between them. If that is true, one would feel that there should be few tensions both between evangelical churches and in overall church/para-church relationships. Since, however, those tensions do exist and hinder co-operation it is imperative that we inquire why this should be the case. A fundamental reason would seem to be a dogmatism about non-essentials and differing scriptural interpretations. The larger areas of fundamental and essential agreement are soon eclipsed by secondary matters which quickly become the sole focus of attention. Some are so convinced about such matters that they show an unwillingness to even listen to another position. The title of a book or the name of an author or publisher is enough to elicit negative feelings, with a consequent refusal to read any further. Yet even a cursory examination of a book's "contents" page can be enough to indicate that there is at least a rational basis for another view. Without such knowledge it is difficult to have even respect for, let alone agreement with, another position. John Robinson, the pastor to the Pilgrim Fathers, was open to such thinking. This is obvious from his wise counsel that "there is still yet more light to break forth out of the Word of God." Openness and respect seem to us to be the foundation materials on which bridges of co-operation are built. A. Problem Areas (i) Red flags in terminology. Words can build bridges or erect insurmountable barriers. Depending on the hearer, a word can be soothing ointment or a caustic acid. Some use words with intention to shock, while others, without due care or forethought, create unnecessary walls. Even biblically derived words such as "evangelical," "ecumenical," "charismatic," or "eucharist" can make the blood of some biblically strong Christians boil, simply because of current usage or exclusive adoption of the word by suspect groups. While we may not be walking dictionaries, we should at least use our mine detectors when passing through a battle zone. We must also exercise Christian love before branding fellow Christians with unfair labels, and show extra caution before judging between Christian and non-Christian or between evangelical and liberal. (ii) A refusal to forget history. An inadequate grasp of church history or a woeful unawareness of the roots of a particular church or denomination frequently makes co-operation difficult. Some Christians are so painfully and resentfully aware of incidents in recent (or not so recent) history that they are constantly perpetuating them onto a generation largely ignorant that the problems ever existed. Even a casual reading of the broad sweep of church history will provide a clearer focus and discourage our majoring on minors. It will also remind us of our common heritage and encourage co-operation in evangelism. We should make time to include this in our reading. (iii) Pet doctrines as yardsticks. Cultural, denominational or personal convictions provide most of us with special plumb-lines by which to detect any semblance of heterodoxy. Such dearly-held truths are not usually of a fundamental nature. While thousands of Christians would understandably languish in prison rather than deny the deity of Christ, some appear ready to be burned at the stake rather than compromise their interpretation of matters less essential (to the rest of us). Yet church government, eschatological views or the mode of baptism are but a few of the matters which seem equally important to many. Some have suffered for such truths. The cost of their purchase is too high to permit a sellout. A group unconvinced of the importance of an issue would do well to invite those with stronger convictions to address them. This may at least generate a respect for their positions, helping to break down walls which hinder co-operation in evangelism. (iv) Understanding of "the Body" of believers. The very use of the term "para-church" to describe them is seen by some organisations as indicative of an inadequate ecclesiology on the part of the user. They feel they are not merely equally "valid" in the Kingdom of God but equally a manifestation of "the Body," even in the local sense. On the other side are churches which find it hard to grasp why organisations dispensing neither sacraments nor discipline see themselves as a biblical alternative for a discipling ministry to new Christians. Some of these question the very validity of any group other than the churches themselves. Barriers are thus erected because of differences both in understanding of and commitment to the local church. Some denominations have a narrow definition of the Church and frequently insist on every ministry being evaluated only in the light of its potential to help the local church. The most rigid in such groups would interpret "local church" to mean only their own brand. To express the unity of the Body by helping another local church would be quite foreign to their thinking (unless it involved their own denominational missions). It is debatable whether their downplaying of the scriptural concept of the one Body (Eph. 4) is the cause or the result of such an attitude. Such differences are more easily resolved at the Bible school or seminary level than they are after having been practised for years in a local church situation. The Commission urges denominational educators to expose their students to the differing viewpoints held by equally biblically-minded Christians before soon-formed habits are cast in concrete. (The para-church issue is discussed in greater detail in Appendices A & B.) (v) Fellowship or separation? While it is a comparatively simple task to highlight the many biblical passages encouraging unity and fellowship with other Christians, it is not all that difficult to excerpt those verses which stress purity and separation from others. One-sided publications which ignore the passages endorsing the opposite view seem to have aggravated their opponents to rush into print. We would encourage the objectivity of a disinterested researcher to lay out the scriptural passages side by side. For, as Frank Colquhoun says in his booklet The Fellowship of the Gospel, "It is possible to lay too much stress upon the ideal of fellowship and to create a false unity, lacking a secure and solid foundation in Christian doctrine ... To strive for unity by going beyond the boundaries of truth is to manufacture a purely artificial fellowship." But, "it is possible to go to the other extreme and to overemphasise the duty of 'separation' from anything and everything that is regarded as false, through a desire to create a pure church. No doubt, the motive that promotes such separation is admirable and reflects a passionate jealousy for the honour of God's Holy Word; but it often results in a series of quite unnecessary and useless splits among Christian brethren and is accompanied, all too often, by a proud, intolerant and pharisaical spirit." The reader may even find himself at this moment with a pen in hand underlining this very document in order to justify his own determination not to cooperate with those outside his group. The Commission makes a plea for balance, particularly at the seminary-training level. In addition, honest, consecutive exposition of the New Testament will provide balanced teaching for each church. While differences in emphases will remain, it is possible to cultivate in any local church a healthy respect for the views of other Christians. This opens the way for greater co-operation in evangelism. (vi) The love-truth pendulum Truth without love becomes harsh and critical, but love without truth encourages a sloppy sentimentality. Love needs strengthening by truth, while truth, in turn, needs softening by love. The love-truth see-saw has greater potential for division than most differences. Little ires a Christian with a warm love for humanity more than an unbending church leader always quoting the letter of the law. Again, few things upset that leader more than the thought that he might slacken up in applying every jot and tittle of Scripture with equal vigour. He just cannot relate to those emphasising love, as he often sees them as having no backbone of conviction. For years, liberals slotted evangelicals in the truth camp. The nineteenth century stress on the fundamentals of the faith appeared to them as harsh, while they saw themselves in the love camp. Such generalisations are scarcely justified; yet, properly defined, they may still be more realistic than the opposite. The letter of the word can easily over-ride the spirit of it until, as Spurgeon said of one denomination, "They go into the forest of God's Word and chop it up into toothpicks." Conversely, we can so emphasise the love of God for the world that we wrongly translate it into equal acceptance for all into the fellowship. Such action ignores the boundaries of truth and sets up its own unbiblical standards and definition of love. Truth and love then, need to be kept in balance. The condoning of either gross immorality or major doctrinal error would indicate an emphasis on love (or rather, a caricature of it) at the expense of truth. On the other hand, the urging of separation over secondary doctrinal matters, or over less serious moral issues, would indicate an emphasis on truth (pursued relentlessly) at the expense of love. We would all do well to constantly evaluate our thinking, and to strive to maintain a balance which will help rather than hinder co-operation. (vii) Guilt by association This tendency has become more prevalent in some circles in recent decades. Its essence is "if you fellowship with him, I'll not fellowship with you." While many followers of the best known nineteenth century proponent of this view appear to have learned their lesson, other denominations, refusing to learn from the past, are now making these same mistakes. To make separation from other Christians the condition of communion could be to insist that the sin of schism be the basis for Christian fellowship. In such cases we must choose between offending God or offending those who set themselves up as lords over God's heritage. While we reject an unprincipled inclusivism, the Commission also recognises that the biblical emphasis on fellowship is far more extensive than that on separation. In this light, we feel that in a doubtful case, it is better to err by inclusion rather than by exclusion of a Christian brother or sister. This principle should not encourage an unscriptural laxity, but give confidence when our wisdom seems inadequate. Refusing to receive as a brother one whom Christ has received, is the essence of schism. Such sin is, in Scripture, grouped with idolatry, sorcery and drunkenness. We read that those who practise such things "will not inherit the Kingdom of God" (Gal. 5:19-21). (viii) Denial of liberty of conscience. One of the prominent emphases of the Reformation was the proclamation of liberty of conscience for individual believers to follow Scripture as they were enlightened by the Holy Spirit. While we deplore the individualism which characterises some evangelicals, we feel that leaders would be going beyond their God-given mandate to impose on others their own preferences in secondary matters. Some, in their zeal, deny their flocks the freedom of inter-denominational contact, out of fear of doctrinal contamination. The Commission is convinced that, in non-primary doctrinal issues, freedom of conscience and consequent diversity of opinion need not be disharmonious. Such liberty should enrich the ministry rather than threaten the fellowship of the body. Some will disagree with the use of the terms "primary" and "secondary" with reference to the truths of Scripture; it must therefore be emphatically stated that all Scripture is important to be believed. Interpretation may vary on many issues without the need to disrupt fellowship. Yet it is our conviction that there are certain truths which must be considered absolutely essential to be agreed upon if we are to foster co-operation in evangelism. In spite of differing lists, there will surely be those truths (such as the Deity, Incarnation, Atoning Death and the Bodily Resurrection of Christ) which will be commonly believed by all who hold to the historic Christian faith. Helpful insights will be gained from a discussion by those who differ, on the question of what truths are essential to be believed, in order for a person to be considered a Christian. The Commission strongly supports a regular diet of Bible exposition to prevent a gradual watering-down of the demands of the faith. We also with equal fervour wish to caution our evangelical brothers and sisters that in our zeal for doctrinal purity, we are sometimes in danger of reducing Christianity from a way of life to a statement of faith. Let us constantly be on guard to preserve the balance of "speaking the truth in love. B. Some Basic Considerations. (i) The purpose of unity: so that the world may believe. The divine purpose of our expressed unity is enunciated by the Lord in his prayer in John 17:21 as "so that the world may believe that thou hast sent me." This belief comes about when the world sees Christians express that oneness in their mission, and when it hears them declare with one voice the message of reconciliation. Our tendency to forget this goal causes us to make increasingly detailed doctrinal demands as the basis for unity. Martin Marty contends that we already have enough unity to work together in the cause of world evangelization, and that resumed mission will enhance the quest for unity. Otherwise, he argues, "World unifying forces could repeat the tragedy of 1910," when modern ecumenism was born out of the World Missionary Conference in Edinburgh. When the originating purpose of evangelization is lost, such groups very quickly deteriorate into debating societies. (ii) Doing must catch up with talking. The Lausanne Congress of 1974 spawned a large number of conferences, conventions and consultations, and perhaps these gatherings, by their very nature, received more publicity than the direct programmes of evangelization which also took place around the world. But while conferences are seen as desirable stepping-stones to action, we need to confess our tendency to talk about the issues as a substitute for, rather than a prerequisite to, taking the Good News to the lost. Sir John Glubb (Glubb Pasha of "Arab Legion" fame) writes in The Fate of Empires, "The spread of knowledge seems to be the most beneficial of human activities, and yet every period of decline is characterised by this expansion of intellectual activity. 'All the Athenians and strangers which were there spent their time in nothing else but either to tell or to hear some new thing' is the description given in the Acts of the Apostles of the decline of Greek intellectualism. "As in the case of the Athenians, intellectualism leads to discussion, debate and argument, such as is typical of the Western nations today. Debates in elected assemblies or local committees, in articles in the press or in interviews on televisionâendless and incessant talking. Men are interminably different, and intellectual arguments rarely lead to agreement. Thus, public affairs drift from bad to worse, amid an unceasing cacophony of argument. But this constant dedication to discussion seems to destroy the power of action. Amid a Babel of talk, the ship drifts onto the rocks." Those eager to get on with the task of evangelization are unlikely to join debating societies to determine the correct way, unless they see that action is concurrent with discussion. While we acknowledge the scripturalness of the prayer, "Teach me thy way, 0 Lord" (Ps. 27:11), we need to be just as eager to pray, "Teach me to do thy will" (Ps. 143:10). (iii) Levels of agreement. John Howard Yoder, in The Ecumenical Movement and the Faithful Church, reminds us that there are definite levels of agreement: "The extent to which it may be possible to do things together will depend entirely upon the degree of agreement already reached. Less unity is needed to converse than to commune; less unity to advocate morality than to apply discipline; less to attack liberalism together than to agree on what is sound doctrine. The essential for obedience in this realm is to go neither farther nor less far than existing agreement permits. if we refuse to converse because we cannot commune, we fail to go the first mile (to say nothing of the second) toward restoration of fellowship, as did the Apostle Paul and the Anabaptists. If, on the other hand, we commune where there is actually only sufficient unity for conversing, we cheapen both unity and truth and do our brother no good." Lesslie Newbigin, a former Bishop of Madras, said, "The disunity of the Church is a denial of the promise and a contradiction of the purpose for which the Church is sent into the world. How can the Church give to the world the message that Jesus is able to draw all men to himself, while it continues to say, 'Nevertheless, Jesus is not able to draw us who bear his Name together'? How will the world believe a message which we do not appear to believe ourselves? The divisions of the Church are a public denial of the sufficiency of the atonement. The search for this kind of Christian unity is primarily a matter of repentance. It is not primarily a matter of organisation." Dogmatism about Non-essentials and Differing Scriptural Interpretation 1. In my interaction with others, am I more eager to find points of agreement or of disagreement? (Read 1 Cor. 13:4-7 and rethink your strategy.) 2. Do I need to confess a tendency to talk, theologise and argueâwhile having little desire to go out and evangelise? 3. Do I frequently use words or expressions which annoy, offend or even shock other Christians? Do I do it purposely, or without thinking? Is there someone I can ask to keep tabs on me? 4. Have I ever taken time to phone that para-church leader and tell him he is appreciated? What would encourage me if I were in his position, differing as we do on some doctrines? 5. What is the, ultimate goal in my overtures of fellowship towards pastors of other churches? Merely that they will like me? Or is it really to build bridges for evangelism, "so that the world may believe"? 6. Am I determined not to listen to arguments supporting another leader's viewpoint? Or will I call him today and ask him to recommend the best book supporting his belief? Do I really have an open mind? 7. Is there a slot of time in my next week's schedule where doing something with another pastor could more profitably replace more study? Am I willing to take the initiative? 8. Do I get "overheated" when I discover a doctrinal difference with another leader? Imagine your conversation if both of you were in the same prison for your faith's sake. What would draw you together? Why not focus on those things now? 9. Am I an uncompromising doctrinal purist needing to be softened by love? Or am I a sentimental inclusivist needing to be strengthened by truth? Am I always on one side of the see-saw? How can I become more balanced? 10. Am I guilty of forcing my views on secondary matters upon other Christians? Have I given the impression that their differing with me will affect our fellowship? (Remember that uniformity is the characteristic of graveyards. Life is always a rich and colourful diversity. Will you allow for it in the spirit of unity?) 11. Is my purpose healthy for gathering a mass of information about Christianity and Scripture? Am I really planning to put it into practise, or merely storing up ammunition to win verbal and theological battles? 12. Do my denominational colleagues emphasise separation more than fellowship? What can I do today to build more bridges than walls, and so reverse the trend? 4. Hindrances to Co-operation: The Threat of Conflicting Authorities. Incentive to examine the validity of a ministry group frequently becomes stronger when that group is invading our home territory. Motivation for research and an eagerness to question is intensified when the "intruder" is attracting interest and getting results in the immediate neighbourhood. True, whether the intruder is another church or organisation, it is especially the case when a para-church group operates without reference to the churches in the area. If such groups appear to be more competitive than supportive, they can expect their validity to be questioned. Pastors and leaders with uneasiness on these matters should initiate dialogue (in the friendly setting of the home, if possible) with those who can give the needed input and help. In this way many potentially explosive situations could be avoided. (Appendix A examines the validity of para-church agencies.) A. The Question of Mandate and Accountability. "Who gave you your mandate?" is a question frequently in the minds of those who listen to special ministry groups describing their work."To whom are you accountable in matters of doctrine, morals, administration and finances?" "Who checks up on you, hires you, fires you or sets you straight?" In answering the questions, there are those who insist that parachurch groups are biblically no more accountable than denominations. But whereas some, with Howard Snyder (Appendix B), would see a denominational network as equally para-church, many would agree with Paul Rees (Appendix A) that such networks at least "owe their existence and are answerable to assemblies of believers amongst whom may be found the 'notae' of church reality." Because Scripture urges us to submit to one another, the Commission suggests that groups not directly accountable to the churches go out of their way to establish some line of voluntary accountability, particularly in matters moral and doctrinal. We feel it desirable to think of accountability both in its personal and corporate dimensions. (i) Personal accountability. We would all do well to consider the comments of Alan Cole (quoted in full in Appendix A). The Commission endorses the statement that "it is clear that every member of a para-church organization should be not only a member of a local church ... but an active member of that church." As Cole says, "This will ensure the corrective discipline and wise pastoring that all Christians need." Whereas reasons for joining certain local churches have not always been clear when there is an organisational ministry needing support, the Commission believes a Christian worker's active involvement in a congregation will not only provide a modality-sodality balance but also ensure that each member of the sodality is under biblically recognised authority in matters moral and doctrinal. But what of administrative and financial accountability? And what if the policies of the organisation are not in keeping with the clear principles of Scripture? Do the local churches where the personnel worship have any right to interfere? Or are they left only with the alternative of denouncing that which they otherwise appear to condone by harbouring the personnel? It is at this point that the problems become more complex, and it is here also that the para-church staff member struggles with conflicting loyalties. Whom does he follow? The church or the organisation? In most cases, the church is helpless for, in reality, it has no more control over that sodality than it does over the church of another denomination down the road. (This is, of course, from a purely legal viewpoint. The exhortation that we, in the body, are to be "subject to one another out of reverence for Christ" will be discussed later, together with the fact that, for Christians, moral obligations should be as binding as legal ones). Dialogue between the leader of that organisation and the pastor of that church would do much to clarify the situation. (ii) Corporate accountability. An organisation may claim that its board of directors (or local committee) is interdenominational. But while all the members may come from different churches, usually few of them actually represent their church, being appointed, not by the church, but by the sodality board. While the board member may well reflect the thinking of his church, to properly represent it, he must be appointed by it. So he can neither speak for his church nor be replaced by his church. This leads to loss of interest and frequent alienation on the part of the congregation. The Commission suggests some ways which may help overcome this sense of helplessness felt by the churches. First, the agency would do well to request the church to officially appoint the desired member to the organisation's board. In this way, official representation could be achieved. The difficulty sometimes encountered in this approach, however, is that many pastors and church boards are reluctant to have their most gifted people drawn away from congregational affairs. (Only frequent preaching on the expressed unity of the body will produce the kind of congregation which sees this as a privilege rather than a necessary evil). Furthermore, those with the best potential for directorship are: not usually the type eagerly responsive to being told on which boards they should serve. But we must keep in mind our goal of unhindered evangelization and persevere in bridge-building attempts. The organisation leader may need to spend time with the pastor, telling him what will be required of the board member and describing the kind of skills specifically being sought. Pastors need to be unselfish in recommending those they feel would be most useful, and in urging their church officers to so appoint. They should clearly inform their elders or deacons of the honourable desire of the agency to be corporately accountable, dispelling any suspicions of an ulterior motive. If this is done, the entire church should be informed of the appointment and encouraged to communicate to the appointee suggestions or concerns regarding the ministries of the organisation concerned. If this plan succeeds, a bridge will have been built and the frustration of the pastor overcome. Above all, a degree of accountability will have been achieved. When these procedures prove unworkable, the Commission suggests that the organisation place itself in a voluntary reporting role to the local evangelical ministerium, encouraging feedback, guidance, and even admonition if necessary, thereby guaranteeing a vehicle for two-way communication and corporate accountability. In addition, an occasional phone call or letter to each pastor, asking for his frank reactions to the programmes, would do a lot to establish credibility and confidence in the organisation. Those not truly committed to finding a workable solution may well give up the attempt as unnecessarily wearying. Some sodalities may consider this striving to please the churches counterproductive to their raison d'^etre. It is claimed, and with no lack of convincing historical evidence, that the genius of sodalities is their very freedom from this type of control or accountability. At the same time, a determination to be independent and totally unrelated to traditional church structures is surely a pragmatic pill too difficult for a theological digestive system to swallow. The Commission finds itself largely in agreement with John Stott that: "independence of the church is bad, cooperation with the church is better, service as an arm of the church is best." We would therefore encourage those involved in these other Christian ministries to persevere in the search for a workable procedure, and to make every effort to establish such channels of accountability. Because of national, legal or constitutional distinctives, some will have to pioneer, cutting their way through hitherto impenetrable jungle. But "where there is a will, there is a way," and the determination to succeed is likely to be maintained provided we do not lose sight of our goal "that the world may believe." Through all this trial and error, failure and success, we must be careful that lessons learned are shared with others in similar situations; for if our objective is to evangelise the world, then everything that helps overcome even the smallest barriers must be communicated to others. The Lausanne Committee is eager to disseminate helpful information to this end, and would welcome hearing of ideas which are working in different regions of the world. B. Territorial Jurisdiction (Comity) Underlying many of the problems to do with authority and accountability is the thinking that certain groups have a right to certain ministries. Denominational, geographical or chronological reasons are sometimes given to substantiate these claims. Occasionally the mere possession of skills, or the fact of government or public recognition, is considered adequate justification. Perhaps the prototypes in this field were the "understood" (or "courtesy") arrangements known as "comity agreements." These came about when mission societies multiplied to the point of competition and rivalry. Groups or denominations participating agreed to work in certain well-defined geographical areas, avoiding overlap and duplication. Warren Webster points out, however, that "in many places churches grew up whose members had no choice in the matter of denominational loyalties." When a family moved to "an area served by another mission, they might become Anglican or Presbyterian overnight." "For the most part," Webster concludes, "comity agreements tended to perpetuate division and denominationalism on a regional basis. They proved to be half-way measures at best, stopping short of real Christian fellowship and unity" and having "little meaning for the Church as the Body of Christ, which cannot be contained or divided by lines on a map." Such courtesy arrangements, undesirable though many see them to have been, continue to be perpetuated in camouflaged forms and are often based on presumed territorial rights. "We were here first" is the argument presented by a variety of groups jealously guarding their ministries. Student evangelism is a prime example, with agreements by the organisations involved not to duplicate each other's efforts by establishing two clubs in the same educational institution. Ministriesâparticularly in the West (like those among professional athletes)âtend to be embracing a similar "hands off" philosophy. Again, umbrella groups seem to be multiplying, and apparently competing for almost monopolistic control of certain facets of ministryâincluding, amazing as it may sound, exclusive rights for organising cooperative ventures. As larger and larger umbrellas are created, those with the true spirit of selfless service are soon recognised by their willingness to yield their rights for the sake of the gospel. In some countries, the council of churchesârecognised by governmentâhas the sole right to decide whom to let in. In other countries, governments work only through the state church. For decades, in mainland China, the Three-Self Patriotic Movement (TSPM) has been the only legally authorised channel. Not to be forgotten is the peer-pressure of majority authority. Where one church is dominant in a country, it can make life so difficult for those not in its fold that its power surpasses that of any appointed authority. It would not be difficult to produce a long list of both the advantages and disadvantages of having these unwritten laws and gentlemen's agreements. But surely in this age of widespread proliferation of Christian groups, we would all do well to heed the Apostle's plea. In the very context which speaks of the unity and diversity within the Body, he urges that we "walk ... with all humility and gentleness, with patience, showing forbearance toward one another in love, being diligent to preserve the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace." Such humility and forbearance would surely include a repentance from an "I'm the king of the castle" attitude by those claiming territorial rights, whether ecclesiastical or organisational. It would also include a gracious and respectful consulting with incumbents on the part of those who would rush in where angels fear to tread. It is the conviction of the Commission that common courtesy, quite apart from Christian brotherliness, demands that there be both prior consultation and an equal openness to receive others who will "strive side by side for the faith of the gospel." C. Fear of Loss of Power To many of us pastors and church leaders, the thrusting by the Holy Spirit of more labourers into our corner of the vineyard represents more of a threat than a help. This should not happen if our ultimate consideration is the gathering of the harvest. Yet human pride frequently usurps that throne, and we see the intrusion as a challenge to our authority. For example, having previously been the only church in town, it mattered not which part of it our members lived in. But a new church of another denomination can become a real threat to the resident pastor. This sometimes results in his establishing a rival work next to the "competition," thus staving off wholesale sheep-stealing, especially from those living in that end of town. In some cases, particularly if the counter-attraction proves too strong, his own church membership may drop. Sensing a loss of control and even motivated by personal resentment, measures are sometimes adopted which will prevent the members from being further exposed to the new ministry. Some pastors go as far as refusing to allow para-church groups into the church, lest they provide a counter-productive link with the rival church. Names and addresses are carefully guarded lest regular contamination come by way of newsletters. It is our view that such a defensive reaction grows in the soil of an inadequate ecclesiology. A sense of personal or pastoral inadequacy in any of us produces similar reactions. A well-run seminar, a dynamic speaker or a gifted expositor may be avoided lest they show up our inefficiency, and cause our people to question their own choice of a leader. Even when the door into the pulpit is thus barred, a pastor's fear of gifts emerging from within can also precipitate a stifling of congregational initiative. Home Bible studies and other potential splinter groups are discouraged, unwittingly leaving potential "lay" leaders in the congregation even more open to the overtures of para-church groups, who offer to utilise their latent gift. By so doing, they drive in further the wedge of resentment by the pastor. Para-church staff involved in ministering in the pulpits of others need to develop a greater sensitivity to these very real fears, thus ensuring that they contribute to the edification rather than to the dividing of congregations. Especially is this so in the case of those looked upon as specialists in any one area of Christian endeavour. Conversely, let self-appointed experts no longer assume that they are indeed the specialists. The mushrooming of para-church groups, while increasing the number of "experts" often brings a deterioration in standards, with the very real possibility that several sitting in the pews are more highly qualified. Those aspiring to true greatness in church and para-church alike, need to cultivate the spirit of servanthood, esteeming others better than themselves. In the face of such humility, threats and fears diminish and the work of world evangelization is enhanced. D. Fear of Being Swallowed Up Large organisations can easily threaten churches or smaller agencies. The fear of being swallowed up, or of being made to look like someone else's statistic causes many to avoid any risk of an encounter. This is particularly true in developing countries where a multi-national Christian corporation subsidises a project, plants its "ownership" sign on the front lawn and invites the world to view its creation. Imagine, too, the frustration in the heart of a dedicated pastor, who has invested years of hard work into training a gifted national leader, only to have a well-paying Western agency entice him away, boasting, "Look at our man." Quite apart from the Christian impropriety of such methods, it is a known fact, among the churches of the Third World, that leaders so bought rarely regain the confidence of their compatriots. While the end result is usually an increased ability to impress the home constituency with the big catch, it is brought about at the awful expense of the weakening of the national church. Such activities are deplored by the Commission with the plea that we do everything in our power to build up, rather than exploit, such human resources. A good start would be to develop a framework in which the power of such agencies is self-limited, while still retaining the flexibility which is the essence and genius of such structures. Nationals should be given a greater hearing in the desirability or otherwise of their conferees being invited to serve on boards or staffs of international agencies. We, therefore, urge those in this category of ministry to adopt policies which will develop, rather than destroy, a sensitivity to the feelings of others. The Threat of Conflicting Authorities 1. Is my organisation eager to see each staff worker as an active and responsible member of a local church? If not, why not? What do I do for my own church between Sundays? 2. Am I, as a para-church leader, willing to establish a line of voluntary accountability to a church or churches in my community, at least in personal, moral and doctrinal matters? 3. Can I do anything to ensure that local church leaders are encouraged to give input to our organisation's policies? 4. Am I willing to help organise a forum where church and parachurch leaders in my community can sit together occasionally, to discuss this matter of authority and accountability? Is a prophet-priest type of relationship a workable parallel? 5. Am I, as a pastor, willing on request to recommend that the church appoint and commission one or two of our key leaders to boards or committees of para-church organisations? 6. Am I, as a para-church leader, open to a church or denomination suggesting they appoint a key businessman to my board? If not, why not? 7. When did I, as a para-church leader, last call on or telephone a local pastor, just to bring him into the picture on our activities? 8. What do I really think of John Stott's statement that "independence of the church is bad, co-operation with the church is better, service as an arm of the church is best"? What are my reasons? Whom can I contact to initiate some action? 9. Do I need to repent from an "I was here first" attitude, or conversely, from invading someone else's territory without prior discussion? 10. Am I trying to bring others under my umbrella? What am I really trying to do? With whom did I discuss it? 11. Am I part of a religious consortium which brings unkind pressure on those not wishing to "join"? Must all think alike to cooperate in evangelism? And if some are not ready to cooperate can I not still encourage them in their work while we do ours? 12. Are denominational or para-church flags flying over projects or programmes in our cityâfiguratively speaking? Are there unwritten yet carefully observed territorial rights? Is all this really promoting a unity which the world sees as positive? Or does it rather help build someone's empire? What can I do that will bring about an even better working relationship? 13. Do I as a pastor really see the new church going up around the corner as competition, or as an opportunity to express the oneness of the Body of Christ? If the latter, what have I done about it? If the former, how can I change my attitude? Have I visited the leaders to welcome them? Have I invited the new pastor to lunch? 14. Do I jealously guard my pulpitâeven from those who are sound in the fundamentals of the faith? Why? What am I afraid of? 15. Do I, as a para-church leader, take unfair advantage during opportunities to speak in a local pulpit? Have I put myself in the pastor's shoes? Do I back him up, or show him up? Am I paternalistic, or do I show gracious submission? 16. Have I virtually cut off my flock from links with other Christian groups or churches? Am I willing to re-evaluate the damage I can cause? Do I realise what an unhealthy view of the Body of Christ I am perpetuating? Am I taking "orders from 'Above'," or bowing to peer group pressure from fellow pastors? Am I willing to stand alone for the expressed unity of the Body? 17. Which is more important to me? Building my own empire by increasing membership and attendance; or promoting unity within the Body of Christ regionally? Am I extending God's Kingdom, or my own kingdom? 18. Am I nursing a grievance because another church or group engaged in sheep-stealing from my staff? Why am I resentful? Am I willing to graciously go to the offending party, discuss the wrongdoing and put the relationship right? 19. Is my organisation guilty of wooing, from Third World countries, personnel who are the "cream of the crop"? Am I aware of the resultant loss to a developing church? Am I sensitive to growing alienation between us and that national church? Am I willing to suggest self-limiting parameters to stop wrongful exploitation of human resources? 20. As a multi-national Christian organisation, to what degree do we really let national leadership make the decisions in matters involving their personnel or their churches? 21. Am I a member of a ministerium which could (even unsolicitedly) arbitrate areas of friction between church and para-church groups? Can we encourage our country's national evangelical fellowship to set up some guidelines? Could I help educate Christian leaders in the value of our expressed unity being seen by the world? What about brief articles or "envelope stuffers" published by our ministerium? What about the next generation? 5. Hindrances to Co-operation: The Harmfulness of Strained Relationships The Thailand statement called for "a change in our personal attitudes." This reflected the reports of several of the mini-consultations. Whereas the primary concerns there expressed our attitudes to those being evangelised, a similar change is now called for in our attitudes to one another as we "strive side by side for the faith of the gospel." George W. Peters, expressed this conviction at the Green Lake '71 Foreign Missions Study Conference Retreat: "Christianity is basically a religion of relationships. Relationships are of deeper significance than organisational structure and identity. The struggle for the preservation of organisational identity must not be permitted to disrupt spiritual relationships, whatever our rights may be." In expressing our deep concern for the generally poor quality of relationship existing between church and organisation and between the organisations themselves, we felt it necessary to spell out some contributing causes in addition to those contained in other sections of this document. We need to repent of the pride and selfishness, which often appear to be at the root of deteriorating relationships. But eradicating wrong attitudes is only part of the Commission's concern. Such attitudes must also be replaced by those which are right and positive, so that the groups involved will each take the initiatives necessary to bring about harmony and co-operation in evangelism. A. A Superior Attitude A superior attitude on the part of some churches or organisations can be a major cause of resentment. Such an attitude, if exhibited by a pastor or organisational leader, soon contaminates the supporting staff. The kind of paternalism frequently seen in the mission fields of the past century is not altogether stamped out. Those who came with the message felt thatâin the gospelâthey were possessors of information which, being "from God," was superior to anything hitherto known by the recipients. The consequent development of a teacher-student relationship soon set the stage for decades of paternalism as the national church grew. Similar attitudes are bred where a church looks back on centuries of proud history and sees itself, therefore, superior to all later arrivals. Conversely, some para-church organisations treat such a heritage as most undesirable, going out of their way to show that because they are new and computerised, their machine is more efficient and more productive. Still others appear to reflect the thinking of large secular corporations, and act as though, because they are the largest, they should be treated with the utmost respect. They see their size as evidence that God has blessed them, and are often insensitive to being seen by others as a threatening steamroller ready to flatten everything in sight. Similarly, specialist organisations sometimes give the impression that they are the ultimate gift from God. Feeling they have superior expertise, some have, on occasions, arrived at a church and virtually taken overâeven using expensive equipment which has been purchased with funds provided by these very churches, or their members. How easily can we appear to have all the answers, and instead of encouraging the congregation, leave it with a somewhat paralysing feeling of total ineptitude. B. Deeply Ingrained Prejudices Longstanding prejudices can seriously hinder working relationships between individual leaders in groups and churches. Despite recent progress, racial, national, and regional prejudices are still a major problem. Almost every area of the world is affected. Quite apart from the more obvious prejudices, denounced as un-Christian by the Lausanne Covenant, two others were singled out by the Commission as being particularly divisive: First, the Atlantic Ocean at times seems like a "great gulf fixed" between that which is American on the one hand and that which is European on the other. To a large degree, the British Commonwealth countries have joined the more conservative, less public-relations conscious Europeans in rejecting (or at least opposing) what they see as flamboyant North American overtures, programmes and ideas. The vast potential for fund-raising in America appears at times to nauseate them. This breeds a resistance to much that invades Europe from west of the Atlantic. The Commission expressed concern as much about the European attitude as it did about frequent North American insensitivity to other cultures, and urges that those of us involved in this or in parallel situations around the world so open ourselves to the Holy Spirit that pride and prejudice can be more effectively dealt with on both personal and corporate levels. The second area concerns the resurgence of the spirit of nationalism across the world. Instead of working towards the breaking down of national barriers (well exemplified in Eph. 2) some Christian leaders seem to have imbibed this same spirit, often to the point of determination to fly their national flag in church and organisation alike. We are unanimous in our belief that Christians must be neither wallbuilders nor empire-builders but bridge-builders. We believe that because Christianity transcends racial, national, cultural and social barriers, we should do all in our power to demonstrate that the gospel is a unifying rather than an alienating force. The reconciling power of our message will not be taken seriously until we, the messengers, learn to work together harmoniously. We urge that nominating committees of organisational boards explore ways of bridge-building as they make their recommendations; and that each para-church group in particular considers the expressed unity of the Body of Christ an indispensable part of its responsibility. C. A Competitive Spirit This matter has already been addressed in the Theological Preamble to this document. It bears repeating, however, that while some argue in favour of competition, seeing it as healthy stimulation for Christian growth and outreach, "an empirical fact is not necessarily a theological truth." Galatians 5:26 is clear that "provoking" (used only here in Scripture and meaning to challenge competitively) is unbecoming of those who profess to "walk by the Spirit." We need to take seriously John Stott's reminder that "sometimes the attempt to glorify the spirit of competition among us thinly disguises a sinful evangelical power-struggle of which we need to repent in dust and ashes." A rigid denominationalism or parochialism, which sees only its own, is viewed by the Commission as paralleling a selfish "my organisation first" attitude which permeates much of the "para-church" world. The Commission, gratifyingly aware of success in serious attempts to cooperate rather than compete, pleads with denominational, church, and para-church leaders to actively pursue that kind of fellowship and co-operation which will result in a more convincing evangelical thrust. Michael Cassidy says, "Nairobi-based para-church organisations are on the right track with their regular monthly meeting of para-church organisations' leaders for prayer and fellowship." The Christian activities at the 1976 Montreal Olympics were coordinated by an ad hoc organisation know as "Aide-Olympique," as a result of initiatives taken by the Canada National Strategy Group at the 1974 Lausanne Congress. Some 55 evangelical denominations and organisations worked together in areas of witness and serviceâto make a much-felt impact on both the Games and the City of Montreal. It was no flash-in-the-pan. At the time of writing this paper, six years later, several organisations with offices in the same building not only still meet together almost daily for prayer and sharing, but also work like different departments of the same sodality, sharing equipment and information in such a way as to avoid needless duplication. Consequently, others have remarked that it is now no easy task to work in the Montreal downtown area without being drawn into the family by a process of divine osmosis. Many such examples could be cited. It is the belief of the Commission that interdenominational groups working in such harmony can do much to break down barriers in urban areas in particular. Could not a Nairobi-style monthly get-together be developed in other centres? Pastors and church leaders would surely see it as a useful vehicle for airing their concerns, in much the same way as a ministerial meeting is the ideal opportunity for para-church groups to present an inter-church programme. Such initiatives provide for the much needed dialogue, so indispensable to the dispelling of fears and misunderstandings. D. An Unforgiving Spirit Several denominations, as well as a number of Christian agencies, have started because of power struggles, personality conflicts, or opposing philosophies (see section 6). Bad experiences either during the divorce or since are sometimes kept uppermost in the minds of the leaders, together with a determination not to forget what may have been a very hurtful episode. Such an unforgiving spirit has enormous potential to seriously damage the Christian witness, quite apart from killing the relationship. Because it is our scriptural duty to admonish one another, third parties in both church and para-church leadership should consider it essential that they (even unsolicitedly) intervene where such deteriorating relationships are perpetuated by one or both groups. Where such differences are amicably resolved, and particularly where the two organisations start to foster a positive relationship, the church is strengthened and the potential for effective evangelism increased. E. Disparaging Talk As a Commission, we have noted the ease with which we find ourselves able to indulge in, or respond to, negative talk about other churches and other Christian ministries. We believe we are not alone in this and acknowledge the need for true repentance, which will, of necessity, involve a forsaking of our sin. We, therefore, urge that we learn to treat each other with family loyalty. To frequently show our love and respect for other groups is one certain way to discourage disparaging talk by others. We would encourage pastors in a community to come together with para-church leaders from time to time for prayer, fellowship and discussion of mutual interests. At such a time, they could covenant together to discourage such negative talk. We need to be reminded that, in keeping with Eph. 4:29-32, we must 'speak that which is good to the use of edifying, that it may minister grace unto the hearers." F. Personnel-Stealing Inconsiderate enticement of leaders from one ministry to another is seen by the Commission as having the potential to create almost irreparable damage in church/para-church and inter-organisational relationships. Particularly does this seem to cause a rift when a personal overture from one group receives a negative response from the person approached, who then relays the facts of the attempt to his superiors. Strained feelings result, and suspicions about the initiating group's motives grow fast. Whereas the Commission naturally differentiates between healthy recruitment procedures and unfair enticement of personnel from one ministry to another, it nevertheless urges all those involved in such activity to go out of their way to prevent unnecessary alienation by considering the feelings of others before acting hastily. The Commission also urges those Christians involved in personnel workâwhether in secular or distinctively Christian ministriesâto sit down together and provide guidelines for denominational and organisational use in this sensitive area. LCWE could be an ideal catalyst in initiating such discussion. Meanwhile, it is felt that in spite of the possible immediate sacrifice, there is always more to be gained in the long term by an openness and a transparency. Such transcends church or organisational interests and promotes unity, rather than the underhanded schemes which bring division and resentment. G. An Indifferent Attitude towards Unity There seem to be relatively few who give much more than lip service to striving to "maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace." It was observed from local efforts that building bridges for evangelistic co-operation was looked upon by most as an optional extra to be indulged in only as time and other demands permitted. We are often so determined that such will not take precedence over our own denominational concernsâthat we think of it as something we should do when we run out of things to do. Yet, just as we do not look upon overseas missions as something we do only when we've done everything possible for home missions, we need to foster the unity of the Body concurrently with building up our own congregations. The Commission believes that an unselfish example of giving a portion of our time to furthering such unity will, in the long run, do more than purely denominational pursuits to make a church healthy and flourishing. Our question should therefore be not "What can I get out of this for the church or the organisation?" but rather "How will the church of Jesus Christ worldwide benefit from what I propose to do?" Such an attitude, it is scriptural to expect, will influence the world for Christ. One way to foster positive attitudes is to select a number of articles or illustrations which further fellowship and co-operation and regularly use them as envelope stuffers when writing church or para-church correspondence. If national fellowships and local ministerial groups would take it on themselves to provide the material, the Christian world would feel the positive effects. The following article is merely one example of a well-written, to-the-point allegory:
Note: It is timely that we once more emphasise that our goal is to encourage that type of co-operation which will result in more effective world evangelization not merely co-operation for the sake of cooperation, worthy though even that may be. Our purpose is to reach the world's unreached peoples, and each restored relationship has the potential to help achieve that purpose. The Harmfulness of Strained Relationships 1. Is pride or selfishness behind some of the attitudes I have towards other Christian leaders? Is there something I need to forget? Is there as much need of confession, repentance or reconciliation on my part as there is on theirs? Even if I think not, am I willing to take the initiative, as Jesus taught? 2. Am I concentrating on putting right some ecclesiastical, mechanical or administrative wrongs, while all the time ignoring personal prejudices and strained relationships with Christian leaders? Will I carry these to my grave? Why? 3. Who is there, close to me, who can "flash a red light" each time I engage in disparaging talk about another church or Christian leader? 4. Is my staff aware of any superior attitude I have towards some Christian groups? Is this then reflected in their own dealings with these groups? How can I correct the situation? 5. Do I feel my denomination or organisation is more prestigious (longer history, larger size, etc.) than others? If so, is this reflected in my having a chip on my shoulder? Have I prayed about my attitude? 6. As a para-church leader do I have a habit of making churches or pastors feel uncomfortable? What can I do to alter this? 7. What are my major prejudices? Racial? National? Intellectual? Socio-economic? What am I doing to correct them? 8. Am I considered a strong personality? If so, do I have difficulty getting along with other strong personalities? Which one will I try to build a bridge with today? 9. Do I tend to take sides in the problem of "the Atlantic divide," or a parallel situation in other regions of the world? How can I become more objective? 10. Am I at present in a power struggle with a Christian leader? What exactly am I trying to prove? What do I want to see happen? How does this attitude hinder the cause of evangelism? 11. Do I see the furthering of Christian unity merely as an optional extra? If everyone were as active as I, would the Church make much progress in this direction? 12. Do I need to confess an unforgiving spirit towards another Christian leader? Do I need to contact him, or is this one between God and me alone? Can I let the sun go down on my wrath? 13. Do people know me as a peace-maker or a trouble-maker? Am I aware of some friction where God could use me to restore harmony? Have I prayed that the door may, open? 14. Do I really pray for other pastors and para-church leaders in my town or city? (A mule cannot kick while he is pulling, nor pull while he is kicking.) 6. Hindrances to Co-operation: The Rivalry between Ministries The dramatic increase in the number of para-church agencies was of major concern to the Commission. The reasons given for starting new societies or keeping old ones alive are not, in our view, always healthy. Overlap of effort, needless duplication and organisations vying for the position of umbrella are becoming common problems. Pastors and other leaders are often quite amazed as they watch what they see as competition becoming more intense each year. We need to be more careful to avoid potentially threatening situations. We must also learn how to better communicate our intentions and goals so as to minimise misunderstanding and suspicion. A. Becoming a Threat to Others. The para-church organisation, particularly when it functions nondenominationally, can easily become a concern both t |