Comments on: What Is The Local Church

By: Jacob Vanhorn

Jacob Vanhorn — Mon, 22 Dec 2008 06:48:19 +0000

I am with Dodson on this one. The local church has specific roles and purposes in the building up of the body. The form of the local church may be varied, but the roles and purposes are present. So no, I don't think of HELP as the local church.

But I also wouldn't call HELP parachurch, at least in the current idea of them. To often, parachurch's have gone from something that supported the local church to competing with the local church. I love Campus Crusade, but don't try to get their students involved in your local body beyond Sunday services. The distrust that exist needs the gospel to melt it.

I have always thought of HELP as what it seems to be, a non-profit with a gospel-centered goal of ending local poverty. Not a parachurch, not a church, but an initiative of transformed Christian men and women. Each of these people should be connected to a local church body (which could be varied) for encouragement, building up and to invite others into the initiative.

What discourages me about so many leaders with initiatives is that they leave the local church and the influence they could have on the local body, while often bashing them (in love of course) for not 'getting it'. And yes, the local church needs to learn how to integrate them into the community, and to release and celebrate them.

Your not so much an advocate for the local church as advocates for Jesus, your initiative/ministry and plugged into a local confessing community.

Love ya bro. Let's get coffee/tacos soon.

By: chrismarlow

chrismarlow — Mon, 22 Dec 2008 04:33:05 +0000

Jacob,
I agree. I think that is what I'm trying tocommunicate. HELP is not the localchurchwith gospel-centered ecclesiology. But we are a key layer for the localchurch.
Taco's next week?

Marlow

By: Jonathan_Dodson

Jonathan_Dodson — Wed, 17 Dec 2008 02:25:50 +0000

Ralph Winter puts a high value on sodalities, which renew modalities (churches). Check out some of his articles on this; hwoever, he has moved into churchless Xty, which I think poses some dangers.

By: chrismarlow

chrismarlow — Tue, 16 Dec 2008 11:13:55 +0000

I see HELP being a key advocate of the local church. By no means do I feel like it's the center of the local church, with Elders, Deacons, Church Discipine etc! But I do get worried when we get tagged with para church label. I think a lot of leaders in the local church think para church organizations are not passionate about the local church, therefore they tend to subversively look down on those organizations.

By: Jonathan Dodson

Jonathan Dodson — Tue, 16 Dec 2008 10:47:03 +0000

This gets at the crux of ecclesiology, something we have been discussing over at Church Planting Novice. I wouldn't consider HELP a church, though certainly part of the Church. Since the Reformation, the church has been defined by certain marks including—communion (Christ-centered community), baptism (people-focused mission), church discipline (biblical governance). Do you see help as something that baptizes people into its own confessing, governed community?

By: chrismarlow

chrismarlow — Tue, 16 Dec 2008 04:09:20 +0000

John,

I wonder how we define proximity?

I don't think HELP is the center. But I do feel like something is lost when we label "local" and "para." There seems to be a stigma attached to para that I'm not sure is fair.

By: chrismarlow

chrismarlow — Tue, 16 Dec 2008 04:01:32 +0000

Pat,

I agree. Especially when you read the NT and the interaction they had. Apostles were traveling city to city to raise up the local leader and encourage the people.

1. So were the Apostles not a part of the so-called "local" church?

2. Of course there was a local church with local Elders who basically did life together, etc.

Seems to be a good mix. Which is what I'm advocating with HELP.

By: john chandler

john chandler — Tue, 16 Dec 2008 03:20:27 +0000

I think this all starts to move in to semantics. But I would suggest that a local church is defined by a community of people who are committed to each other and mission together. So, yeah, I see HELP as part of the church global, whether or not that should be called parachurch, I'm not sure. But, I would say that something is lost when we don't see the local church as a group of people with proximity to each other who are committed to the formation of one another.

By: Pat Ballard

Pat Ballard — Tue, 16 Dec 2008 03:10:11 +0000

All of Christ's followers are the church. Right? I think the local church is wherever you are at. If I'm in Cairo, I'm in the local church. If I'm in Hendersonville,TN that's my local church. So what is Cairo when I'm in Hendersonville,TN? Is it someone else's local church or my global church, it was my local church at one time?

Your sacrifice and my sacrifice isn't just for the local church, it's also for the global church. The building up of God's Kingdom. So aren't they the same?
Humans have a habit of having to label something because it looks slightly different. Parachurch, local church, global church. All should have the same goal and are "the church". Where the "local church" has missed it is thinking that was the end result and reduced the church to a building and some people inside.

I think this is like what you are saying. You don't like labels. Me neither. Jesus didn't come to setup multiple churches. We are all to be involved in helping the poor sick and afflicted together.