The parachurch dilemma

The reference to 'parachurch' organisations by a post on the Anglican Forum gives much away. The biblical definition of church would be where two or three are meeting together (Matt 18:20) to share their spiritual lives, to encourage, build up, teach and prophesy to one another (1 Cor 14:26), and over time, not forsaking this meeting (Heb 10:25). That's the start and end of church in the Bible.

In Anglicanism of course, we don't need to mark the Biblical definition because we have our own: you must have a Primate, a few archbishops, a squad of bishops, archdeacons, deacons, priests, deans, (area deans, rural deans), rectors who take various names: very reverend, right reverend, plain ordinary old reverend, venerable, and so it goes, in arrant disregard for the direction of Christ (Matt 23:6-8). Of course, you've got to have separation between laity and clergy, and meet in weird expensive buildings which serve to exclude the average person and isolate Christians from the world, you have to impose behaviour (U non-U barriers: Mark 7:9) to preserve the group, and suppress dissent.

In the kingdom of God, there is no distinction such as 'church-parachurch' that is a man made power play to silence those who do not cooperate with your artificial and oppressive, I would also add, unbiblical structures. Indeed, the growth of 'pan denominational organisations' is indicative of the failure of denominational structures to serve the church.

A while ago Peter the Lord Archbishop (Matt 23:6,7) stated that he wanted to see 10% of Sydney siders in a Bible-based church. I wrote to him presuming that he would be steering people away from Anglican churches, because they made slender reference to the Bible in their structure, behaviour (witness the unkindness and obdurate judgementalism on the Anglican Forum as a prize case in point), and references to Rome in their format (the thinly veiled mass) and hierarchy. Needless to say (and in true Anglican fashion) he didn't reply.

This debate, and the whole reason we had to start our own blog, is also indicative of the 'churchly' qualities in absentia one finds in the Anglican church in Sydney.

I refer to scriptural injunctions to behaviour such as
1 Pe 3:8-12
To sum up, all of you be harmonious, sympathetic, brotherly, kindhearted, and humble in spirit; not returning evil for evil or insult for insult, but giving a blessing instead; for you were called for the very purpose that you might inherit a blessing. For, "THE ONE WHO DESIRES LIFE, TO LOVE AND SEE GOOD DAYS, MUST KEEP HIS TONGUE FROM EVIL AND HIS LIPS FROM SPEAKING DECEIT.
11 "HE MUST TURN AWAY FROM EVIL AND DO GOOD; HE MUST SEEK PEACE AND PURSUE IT.
or
Gal 5:22-23
But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control;

Or I could refer to the ordinal, for those forum members who have the same names as ordained clergy, or whom I know to be such (they prove that ordination is a pointless human tradition by their disregard for their vows). For instance:

"will you maintain and promote, to the best of your ability quietness, peace and love among all Christian people . . ."; and,

"have always therefore printed in your mind how great a treasure is committed to your care. For they are the sheep of Christ, whom he brought with his death, and for whom he shed his blood. the church and congregation whom you must serve is his bride and his body. And if it should come about that the church, or any of its members, is hurt or hindered as a result of your negligence, you know the greatness of the fault and the judgement that will follow".

Well, those vows don't get much traction in their behaviour on the Forum, do they? Rather they have adhered to the old gnostic vow: "in you relationships use hubris, because you are far more clever and think you have read more books than others and have partaken of the mysteries that your great predecessors in the faith have completely missed out on, and your contemporary brothers, who do not have the benefit of ordination and its gift of magic hands which can do communion cannot attain to and therefore are but mere dust-eaters not worthy of your time or thought".

And what is the example? One Michael Jensen calls 'no death before the fall salvationists' "mad" and another Jensen, Peter, calls us 'hillbillies'. Well if I can be a hillbilly and avoid being numbered in Jensen's cabal, and seek to be transformed by the word of God, all the better.