Steve Van Zanen

Wow, a lively discussion!  As Jamie Smith pointed out many of those in officially Reformed or Presbyterian denominations overseas look quite charismatic to North American Reformed folk.  In addition, many of those who are in officially Pentecostal denominations are very open to the Reformed culture-shaping emphasis.  I got back on Thursday from a trip to Nicaragua where 30% of the population is Protestant and 80-90% of them are Pentecostal or Charismatic.  The Nicaraguan staff of the Nehemiah Center are actively engaging churches across this spectrum with the goal of discovering, encouraging, connecting and resourcing local leaders for community transformation.  It's an exciting ministry, sort of Gordon Fee meets Abraham Kuyper. 

One value of this distinction is that it clarifies what the church as church should do, as compared to what Christians should do.  Professor Cal Van Reken wrote about that here.  There is a very brief response by Peter Vander Meulen at the end, but he has much more to say on the topic. 

Hi Lou,

Just a clarification that the writer is Rick De Graaf.  I agree with your concern about the use of terms.  Steve

Hi Greg,

  The years aren't quite adding up for me.  Are you sure it was 1998.

Thanks Rich,

I think your comments echo those of many who were very reluctant to engage in support raising, but came to see it as an opportunity to seek the blessing of God on the donor, not just a way to fund a particular ministry.  The books I referenced in the original post all point in that direction.  It seems to me that they go a long way toward responding to the concerns raised by thomps above.  One point that I would make in regard to the quotations thomps supplies is that Paul was very deliberate about not relying for financial support on new converts.  He didn't want to be associated with the methods of religious charlatans who were so common in his day.  However, he praised those from established churches who gave generously to his work in planting new churches elsewhere.  This was not for his benefit, but for the sake of the ministry and the blessing of the givers.

Thanks Wendy for a great article.  It suggests that, if done right, STM can be a real blessing on both sides of the divide.  Regarding the stats on Christianity in Honduras, Operation World has quite a different picture from the World Factbook.  It shows 97% Christians: 80% Roman Catholic and 19% Protestant including some doubly affiliated. 

Sadly, they often aren't different.  A great deal of what happens in raising funds for Christian organizations is highly problematic.  My observation is that the worst offenders are often televised ministries.  Those of us who have been around a while remember the Jim Bakker and Jimmy Swaggart scandals in which funds were pulled from little old ladies with heartrending stories and used for luxurious living and immoral conduct. 

But there are approaches that do seek the blessing of the donor and the advance of the Kingdom.  I'd invite you to take a look at one or more of the books referenced in the original post.  Henri Nouwen's book is the briefest and most surprising.  All of his other work, as far as I know it, had to do with spirituality and ministry.  His book The Wounded Healer was an amazing gift to me at a difficult transition in my life.  The perspective he offers on doing fund raising in a manner worthy of God is truly remarkable.

I have a lot of respect for George Mueller and others who followed his model, like Hudson Taylor, but I don't think that approach is required of us in Scripture.  Some have felt led to employ it, and I applaud them.

This is a really informative interview.

I have no doubt that Jay has spent a good deal more time thinking about this than I have.  So, I am eager to hear his thoughts on this. 

It seems to me that this distinction can come in handy in some circumstances.  People sometimes want "the church" to speak about issues or support candidates which congregations and denominations should not speak to.  Of course, from a legal standpoint congregations and denominations can put their tax deductible status in jeopardy if they engage in certain kinds of political activity.  But even if that were not an issue, it seems to me that the church "as institute" can get itself embroiled in all sorts of internal controversy and external public relations problems when it blunders into areas beyond its competence.

On the other hand, when a group of Christians organize to advocate for justice or to speak into a societal issue, often across congregational and denominational lines, is that the Church?  I would say yes.  It is the church as organism, as a body.  Jay points out that often engagement with social change issues has to start in this way.  Congregations and denominations aren't set up for this kind of work.  The unity of purpose expressed by Christians in such settings can be truly beautiful.

Thanks Jay for clarifying your concern with this distinction.  Now I understand why you feel so strongly. It would be tragic if the church as institute took no responsibility for what its members do or don't do beyond official church programs.  A church that is satisfied to worship, learn, care and fellowship internally and ignore its community is lacking something absolutely central.

On the other hand, some of the best and most important ministry happens when Christians from across congregational and denominational lines, who have been stimulated and challenged by their churches (institute) gather in a common cause to serve their community.  Once this gathering of Christian individuals comes together in the name of Christ to serve their community, are they the Church or not?  I would say yes.  They are the Church as organism. 

Do you mean to say 90% of Downs children?  I'm assuming that is a US, not a world figure.