Review: Church without Walls

Recently I was able to finish the book, Church without Walls. This book is by Jim Peterson, and I think it is a very important book for anyone on The Journey. The thesis of Peterson’s book is that Christians are in the world (not separate from it) to spread the Good News about Jesus Christ and that all Christians play a role in completing this task.

Here is an excerpt from the book (p. 168-170):

Our Narrowed Understanding of the Church

That we have in fact suffered this narrowing process can be illustrated by examining two statements we make repeatedly about the church. Both statements are usually made with all the confidence of someone who is uttering sacred writ. The two statements are as follows.

• The local church is God’s primary means for accomplishing the Great Commission
• Parachurch groups were raised up to do what the local churches should be doing, but aren’t.

What do we mean by that first statement, “The local church is God’s primary means for accomplishing the Great Commission”?

What other means does God have at His disposal in drawing people to Himself? Well, there are many. He uses His creation. He uses calamity and judgment. He uses the Old Testament prophets, rulers, and historical events. He uses His Word, the Holy Spirit, and His people. Now which of these is God’s “primary means?

Well, we reply, that’s not what we’re talking about. We’re talking about our part in accomplishing the Great Commission. It has to do with ministry. So what we mean by the statement is, of all the forms of ministry Christians get involved in, what goes on in the local church is primary.

But we’re still in trouble. Is not the diversity in the body God’s idea? The apostle writes, “There are different kinds of gifts . . . different kinds of service . . . different kinds of working, but the same God works all of them in all men.” And did he not say, “There should be no division in the body, but . . . its parts should have an equal concern for each other”? Are we making value judgments and comparisons between different members of the same body? Well, we reply, that’s no what we mean either.

When it gets down to it, the phrase is usually intended to mean the following: “There is no other authoritative structure in the New Testament for doing God’s work other than the local church. Any work of the church must be under the headship of local, recognized spiritual leaders.” This quotation came from my notes from a lecture. It could have come from any number of sources, as this position is common. In a similar vein, people will say, “I believe in the local church.” That sounds simple enough, but what they often mean, but leave unsaid, is, “I don’t believe in anything else.”

Our difficulties, at this point, lie in the fact that our entire discussion is based on assumptions we have picked up along the way in the course of church history, rather than on the Bible. The Reformers, remember, struggled with the question “How do we know a local church when we see one?” Since the “church universal” was too abstract to do anything with, their practical definition of the church inevitably had the local church as its starting point. Today we still tend to view the church through an exclusively local grid. This has a debilitating effect on the local church. A church that sees its own appointed leaders, staff, or majority vote as the sole source of spiritual leadership becomes an increasingly inward-looking church. Without the cross winds of other spiritual leadership, it ends up talking to itself. It will lack the range of vision and the experience needed to break out into the world.

The second statement, “Parachurch groups were raised up to do what the local churches should be doing, but aren’t,” reflects the same problem. It has its origins in the same ecclesiology as the first.

This ecclesiology begins by asking the question, “When is a church a church?” Our answers usually describe the church as consisting of believers who meet in a certain place where certain things happen. There is corporate worship, teaching of the Word, the sacraments, and there is leadership. A certain structure is implied.

Since these are not the central activities of parachurch ministries, they don’t fit readily into our commonly accepted ecclesiology. So, we reason, such groups aren’t really church. Come to think of it, we’re not sure what they are! So, for many, a cloud hangs over this whole issue of parachurch. Parachurch and paramedic – handy to have around at times, but make sure it’s a real doctor who does the surgery on me!

To say the parachurch groups exist because the local churches aren’t doing the job again reveals the limitations of our prevailing understanding of God’s people. it reflects the assumption that a really good local church is supposed to be doing everything. But any local body that attempts to do everything will simply fail in critical aspects. That is because a local body, like an individual believer, is a part of a great whole. A local body needs to understand its sphere of ministry, its contribution — and the limits of that contribution — if it is to be effective.

We made a major mistake when we first admitted the term parachurch into our vocabulary. How can one part of a body be “para” to the other parts? This awkward division of local and parachurch structures has resulted from our narrow understanding of the church. This narrowing costs us dearly, as it leaves the unbelieving world in no-man’s-land.

What do you think?